Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

Some people say, "extraordinary claims require extroordinary evidence." That's not exactly right. In general, a claim that is counter to my existing beliefs (assuming they are evidence-based) will require adequate evidence to defeat my existing body of evidence. If that evidence is not forthcoming, my beliefs will remain as is.

That is just silly, what about those who have had experience of, let's say, non-natural events? I guess you can personally speak for yourself, but you can not categorically deny the supernatural. And to be honest Carp, I found that what one defines as evidence is often rather vague.

The Christian scriptures describe a wide array of "miracles" attributed to the person of Jesus of Nazareth. My experience is that such miracles are either eventually explained as a natural phenomenon, or are debunked. I have zero personal experience of "miracles," and a huge body of evidence that shows that what some people call "miracles" are actually statistically predictable outcomes. So claims that the miracles attributed to Jesus are "real" are going to have to overcome that body of evidence. No one has ever made that case.

You are just assuming the conclusion here - What miracles of Jesus have been debunked or explained as a natural phenomenon? I posted an experience I had about three years ago, and no one here could offer a natural explanation.

As for attribution of authorship, your statement is more absolute than the actual case. Paul was not a contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth. Some of the authors of the gospels are believed to be, but the earliest confirmed dating we have of any of the texts is from the 60s (AFAIK), which dates these elements three decades after the events they describe. This would be akin to you relating events that occurred for you in 1987, even going so far as quoting the actual words of the players. Given the broad research that now exists on the malleability of memory (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3402138/), both personally and collectively, this makes these "first person" accounts somewhat suspect.

Nonsense Carp, Paul was a contemporary of the Apostles. And believe me, if a friend claimed he was the Son of God and rose from the dead I would remember that until my dying day - no matter how long after.

That there are physics models out there we do not completely understand, I accept. That we do not know everything there is to know about the universe, I accept. To take that "lack of knowledge" and use it as the basis for a belief system is, to me, an irrational act. Why do I believe that our person ends at death? Because that is what the evidence tells me. The evidence tells me that our "self" is a construct of the organ we call "the brain." We can see that in the significant changes that happen to "person" when this organ is messed with. Harm select parts of this organ and we can see anything from loss of memory to complete personality change. When this organ ceases to function - we fairly universally accept that as a clinical death.

Of course we first have to take your word that you are rational before we can accept your judgement on what is irrational (big leap of faith Bro). But it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we could not fully explain an eternal, timeless reality or an infinite Being. Our lack of knowledge no more speaks against these as it would speak against other dimensions.

I have no credible evidence that thing called "soul" exists or transcends this organ. The evidence I have seen shows that the demise of this organ marks the end of the person (or animal). Now, if someone can actually provide evidence that can overcome this existing body of evidence, I would certainly look at it.

But why would you expect physical evidence of an immaterial spirit? See you set the rules and claim victory!

So that leads me to a simple question: why is this notion of life after death so universal? I think we find that answer is psychology, not physiology. You touched on it earlier. Death is an inevitable terminus. It is a phenomenon that is difficult to grasp. We are, AFAIK, the first self-aware species that has the ability to reflect on its own death. There is a dissonance between "I exist" and "someday I will not exist." The idea of our own nonexistence runs counter to every survival gene we contain. The inevitability of it creates a discord. That discord can be fairly easily resolved by adopting a belief that we do not actually end - that we continue on after the monet of death in some spiritual plane.

Or, we have an innate, God given, desire for life.

Man - I really DO get wordy...

Yes, yes you do...

[carpedm9587]

That is just silly, what about those who have had experience of, let's say, non-natural events? I guess you can personally speak for yourself, but you can not categorically deny the supernatural. And to be honest Carp, I found that what one defines as evidence is often rather vague.

There are many reasons why someone might "experience" the supernatural without it actually being the supernatural. To my knowledge, every claim of "supernatural" I have ever seen that could be investigated has been debunked, or shown to be statistically predictable. If you have other evidence, I'm happy to look at it - but my personal experience coupled with that body of evidence is enough to convince me that the "supernatural," as it is commonly defined, simply does not exist.

Can I prove it? Of course not. I also cannot prove god does not exist. But the preponderance of the evidence points in that direction, so I believe both to be true.

You are just assuming the conclusion here - What miracles of Jesus have been debunked or explained as a natural phenomenon? I posted an experience I had about three years ago, and no one here could offer a natural explanation.

I have not said they HAVE been debunked, Seer. It would be difficult to "prove" such a thing on the basis of available evidence. However, there are credible, possible naturalistic explanations for many of them, and there is the entire issue of "did they actually happen as described," or are we simply seeing Jesus through the eyes of a maturing theology. My experience of miracles today informs my interpretation of biblical claims. I do not see that as "assuming my conclusion." Evidence today suggests that supernatural explanations are not supportable - so to come to a conclusion that the same is true for all of human history is not a stretch - especially as we move further back in time to periods when the mechanics of the universe are less well known.

Nonsense Carp, Paul was a contemporary of the Apostles. And believe me, if a friend claimed he was the Son of God and rose from the dead I would remember that until my dying day - no matter how long after.

It is possible, Seer, that they are remembering things as Jesus actually quoted them, in which case I would consider Jesus a little off plumb. I am not a subscriber to the "rose from the dead" claims.

Of course we first have to take your word that you are rational before we can accept your judgement on what is irrational (big leap of faith Bro). But it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that we could not fully explain an eternal, timeless reality or an infinite Being. Our lack of knowledge no more speaks against these as it would speak against other dimensions.

Well, I can only be as rational as I can be! I'll leave it to those who read my posts and my supporting arguments to come to their own conclusions about how rational I am being. If someone wishes to point to a place where I am being irrational - I will do my best to look at it. If I'm truly an irrational person, I'm not sure what will be gained by that analysis - I will simply continue to be dismissed as irrational and the purpose for further discourse is lost.

I tend to make the assumption that I am talking to rational people, and they simply have different presuppositions than I do. For example, I do not think you are "irrational" in your beliefs. I DO think you are starting with particular presuppositions, and you are interpreting evidence in a way I do not. Neither of those things make you irrational.

But why would you expect physical evidence of an immaterial spirit? See you set the rules and claim victory!

I'm not sure where I said I needed "physical evidence." Evidence will suffice. For the supernatural, I have no evidence of ANY sort that I find compelling. I have no personal experience of this realm. Some of the claims about this realm do not appear to hang together intelligibly (to me). And many alternative (and simpler) explanations that do not require me to upend my worldview so as to accept them.

Or, we have an innate, God given, desire for life.

To you, I am sure this seems true. To me, we have a evolution-based survival instinct that is adequately explained by the evolutionary process.

Yes, yes you do...

Yeah - I know...

[seer]

There are many reasons why someone might "experience" the supernatural without it actually being the supernatural. To my knowledge, every claim of "supernatural" I have ever seen that could be investigated has been debunked, or shown to be statistically predictable. If you have other evidence, I'm happy to look at it - but my personal experience coupled with that body of evidence is enough to convince me that the "supernatural," as it is commonly defined, simply does not exist.

Can I prove it? Of course not. I also cannot prove god does not exist. But the preponderance of the evidence points in that direction, so I believe both to be true.

Here is an experience I had about three years ago. I wrote it about twenty minutes after the event so it was fresh in my mind: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=Dancing+fern

I have not said they HAVE been debunked, Seer. It would be difficult to "prove" such a thing on the basis of available evidence. However, there are credible, possible naturalistic explanations for many of them, and there is the entire issue of "did they actually happen as described," or are we simply seeing Jesus through the eyes of a maturing theology. My experience of miracles today informs my interpretation of biblical claims. I do not see that as "assuming my conclusion." Evidence today suggests that supernatural explanations are not supportable - so to come to a conclusion that the same is true for all of human history is not a stretch - especially as we move further back in time to periods when the mechanics of the universe are less well known.

Again Carp, you are begging the question, there is no evidence that there was a maturing theology. And I have no idea what you mean by supportable - by what or whom? But let me ask again, if you had a friend that claimed to be the Son of God, died and came back from the dead - is that something you would ever forget?

I'm not sure where I said I needed "physical evidence." Evidence will suffice. For the supernatural, I have no evidence of ANY sort that I find compelling. I have no personal experience of this realm. Some of the claims about this realm do not appear to hang together intelligibly (to me). And many alternative (and simpler) explanations that do not require me to upend my worldview so as to accept them.

But that is not what I asked. What evidence could there be for an immaterial soul?

[carpedm9587]

Here is an experience I had about three years ago. I wrote it about twenty minutes after the event so it was fresh in my mind: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...t=Dancing+fern

The most likely explanation I can think of, given the size of the fern as described, is spider silk. These silk threads are incredibly strong - certainly strong enough to hold up a fragment of fern, and are essentially invisible unless viewed in exactly the right light. I have seen similar things while walking in the woods around my home: individual leaves, bugs, once it was a largish piece of tissue paper. On a sun-lit day - in an open area, the silk is usually visible. On a cloudy day or in the shadows of a forest, it is often not. It makes for an eerie encounter.

Again Carp, you are begging the question, there is no evidence that there was a maturing theology. And I have no idea what you mean by supportable - by what or whom? But let me ask again, if you had a friend that claimed to be the Son of God, died and came back from the dead - is that something you would ever forget?

I'm not sure what you would require as proof of a maturing theology, Seer. I point to the variations in the letters of Paul, which predate the gospels, and the gospels themselves - as well as the distinct variation between the synoptic gospels and the gospel attributed to John, which has a significantly more developed (and more "mystical") theology. Add to that the theology of Revelations, the most recent of the NT books, and I think there is a pretty solid case for a developing theology in the Christian community. Even Paul's letters reveal that various communities are moving in different directions, before the gospels are even written. By the time you get to the formal structure of the early Christian church, and the various church councils, the progress of theological development is clear. (Early Church history was a guided study I did in the seminary)

But that is not what I asked. What evidence could there be for an immaterial soul?

Well, it depends on what "immaterial soul" means to you. If your definition is "a spiritual entity that persists after death and has no access to physical reality once the mortal realm has been shed," then I would say there can't really be any evidence of such a thing. The thing has been defined in such a way as it cannot be experienced.

Which leaves the believer in such things in the odd position of accepting as true a proposition for which there is no evidence.

But the "soul" is not considered to be existent ONLY separate from physical beings. My understanding is that we are all said to have a "soul." Only I have no experience of such a thing within myself, and no evidence to suggest such a thing exists in any form anywhere else.

How can I claim to believe to be true something for which I have no evidence whatsoever? Can I prove they do not exist? Obviously not. But the concept of an "immortal" soul simply doesn't fit into the rest of my worldview, for which I DO have evidence, so I am inclined to believe such thing is a construct of religions - not something that actually exists.

[seer]

The most likely explanation I can think of, given the size of the fern as described, is spider silk. These silk threads are incredibly strong - certainly strong enough to hold up a fragment of fern, and are essentially invisible unless viewed in exactly the right light. I have seen similar things as walking in the woods around my home: individual leaves, bugs, once it was a piece of tissue paper. On a sun-lit day - in an open area, the silk is usually visible. On a cloudy day or in the shadows of a forrest, it is often not.

But that can not be the case, as I wrote, I ran my hand and arm around the fern a number of times. I would have broken the connection of pulled the fern. Like I said, no one has offered a plausible natural explanation.

I'm not sure what you would require as proof of a maturing theology, Seer. I point to the variations in the letters of Paul, which predate the gospels, and the gospels themselves - as well as the distinct variation between the synoptic gospels and the gospel attributed to John, which has a significantly more developed (and more "mystical") theology. Add to that the theology of Revelations, the most recent of the NT books, and I think there is a pretty solid case for a developing theology.

We are speaking of a particular issue here Carp, the claim to Sonship. And that is found in the oldest writings, and in Paul's writings, who was a contemporary of the Apostles. There is no reason, or evidence, to suggest that we went from non-sonship to Sonship.

Well, it depends on what "immaterial soul" means to you. If your definition is "a spiritual entity that persists after death and has no access to physical reality once the mortal realm has been shed," then I would say there can't really be any evidence of such a thing. The thing has been defined in such a way as it cannot be experienced.

Or a spirit has influence that can not be detected by physical means. Perhaps it answers the hard problem of consciousness. Though I don't think Chalmers, being a good atheist, would agree with me.

Which leaves the believer in such things in the odd position of accepting as true a proposition for which there is no evidence.

Who defines evidence? We think historical Revelation is evidence, that personal experience is evidence.

[carpedm9587]

But that can not be the case, as I wrote, I ran my hand and arm around the fern a number of times. I would have broken the connection of pulled the fern. Like I said, no one has offered a plausible natural explanation.

If you are saying that you did the "hands all round" thing illusionists do when they perform a similar illusion, then I do not know how to provide you with an explanation. I DO know it is possible to create that illusion artificially, so that even the person "testing" it is fooled - but I do not know how the illusion works so I cannot explain it to you. It seems far more likely to me that, in your "hands around" test you simply missed the silk. The rest of the explanation fits - including the way it would seem to float and drift and return to its location.

It is, to me, a more credible explanation than, "god did it" or "it's a miracle." Basically, objects appearing to hover do not necessarily defy laws of physics so are not necessarily miracles.

We are speaking of a particular issue here Carp, the claim to Sonship. And that is found in the oldest writings, and in Paul's writings, who was a contemporary of the Apostles. There is no reason, or evidence, to suggest that we went from non-sonship to Sonship.

Seer, I have used the expression "Father" in reference to god (when I was Christian). The image of god as a male is widely imbedded in Judaic tradition, from which Christianity springs. Several unorthodox (from a traditional Judaic tradition) teachings are attributed to Jesus (love first, not law, etc.), so it is not beyond the pale that he claimed "sonship" to god as a natural extension of seeing god as "father" or "abba." That this claim was reflected as a claim to divinity is something I suspect (but cannot prove) is a theological addition. If it wasn't, then we're back to the trilemma and I would suggest Jesus was slightly off of plumb. "Liar" just doesn't seem to fit.

Note, the early church had multiple lines of belief around this, as they struggled to reconcile the concept of divinity with the concept of humanity, and then ultimately to concept of trinity. Sects that had different views were isolated and most faded into obscurity. Later on, this division process would produce sects that would continue to survive the split, until we arrive at the modern era with over 2,500 identifed Christian sects.

Or a spirit has influence that can not be detected by physical means. Perhaps it answers the hard problem of consciousness. Though I don't think Chalmers, being a good atheist, would agree with me.

I know I do not. Research into so-called "emergent properties" is far more indicative of the reality to me. The human brain is one of the MOST complex organism we know about. We know complexity often leads to properties that transcend the individual elements that comprimse the thing in question. We see this in economics, in fluid dynamics, and in biology all the time. Life itself is an emergent property that is hard to pin down based on the specific matter that makes up living things. After all - there is nothing in any living thing that is not found in non-living things. But when the complexity breaks down, all evidence is that the emergent properties themselves end. I see no reason to leap to "immortal soul" to explain this phenomenon. Furthermore, "consciousness" is not a binary condition. We see a wide variation in graduation of "consciousness" from the lowest forms exhibited by the plant kingdom to the highest order exhibited by humanity, with many species exhibiting some degree of consciousness, learning, and self reflection.

Who defines evidence? We think historical Revelation is evidence, that personal experience is evidence.

Evidence is a demonstrable fact that lends credence to a particular claim. Sometimes evidence is irrefutable and the claim is "proven." Mathematics is subject to such evidence. Sometimes the evidence is indicative and the claim is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt." This is how the legal system works.

I think the faith world is much more like the legal world than the mathematical one. To me - the preponderance of the evidence suggests that religions and gods are human constructs that developed over time for various purposes - but primarily to expain the inexplicable, to provide a sense of continuity after death, and to explain a pervasive human question: why? You obviously think that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of an existent god, and died on the cross to redeem you from your sins.

We start with different experiences and different presuppositions - so we end at different conclusions.

[seer]

If you are saying that you did the "hands all round" thing illusionists do when they perform a similar illusion, then I do not know how to provide you with an explanation. I DO know it is possible to create that illusion artificially, so that even the person "testing" it is fooled - but I do not know how the illusion works so I cannot explain it to you. It seems far more likely to me that, in your "hands around" test you simply missed the silk. The rest of the explanation fits - including the way it would seem to float and drift and return to its location.

It is, to me, a more credible explanation than, "god did it" or "it's a miracle." Basically, objects appearing to hover do not necessarily defy laws of physics so ar enot necessarily miracles.

No Carp, I did not miss the silk, that is exactly what I was looking for and feeling for. There as no way that fern was connected to anything - I spend over ten minutes trying to find a connection - to anything. I did not originally assume a non-natural reason.

Seer, I have used the expression "Father" in reference to god (when I was Christian). The image of god as a male is widely imbedded in Judaic tradition, from which Christianity springs. Several unorthodox (from a traditional Judaic tradition) teachings are attributed to Jesus (love first, not law, etc.), so it is not beyond the pale that he claimed "sonship" to god as a natural extension of seeing god as "father" or "abba." That this claim was reflected as a claim to divinity is something I suspect (but cannot prove) is a theological addition. If it wasn't, then we're back to the trilemma and I would suggest Jesus was slightly off of plumb. "Liar" just doesn't seem to fit.

Christ did not claim to be a son of God, that would not be remarkable, men and angels can claimed that in the Old Testament, but the (definite article) Son of God, hence the charge of blasphemy.

Note, the early church had multiple lines of belief around this, as they struggled to reconcile the concept of divinity with the concept of humanity, and then ultimately to concept of trinity. Sects that had different views were isolated and most faded into obscurity. Later on, this division process would produce sects that would continue to survive the split, until we arrive at the modern era with over 2,500 identifed Christian sects.

But I'm speaking of the earliest known Christian texts and the fact that we have no evidence of a progression of theology concerning Sonship.

I know I do not. Research into so-called "emergent properties" is far more indicative of the reality to me. The human brain is one of the MOST complex organism we know about. We know complexity often leads to properties that transcend the individual elements that comprimse the thing in question. We see this in economics, in fluid dynamics, and in biology all the time. Life itself is an emergent property that is hard to pin down based on the specific matter that makes up living things. After all - there is nothing in any living thing that is not found in non-living things. But when the complexity breaks down, all evidence is that the emergent properties themselves end. I see no reason to leap to "immortal soul" to explain this phenomenon. Furthermore, "consciousness" is not a binary condition. We see a wide variation in graduation of "consciousness" from the lowest forms exhibited by the plant kingdom to the highest order exhibited by humanity, with many species exhibiting some degree of consciousness, learning, and self reflection.



Evidence is a demonstrable fact that lends credence to a particular claim. Sometimes evidence is irrefutable and the claim is "proven." Mathematics is subject to such evidence. Sometimes the evidence is indicative and the claim is "proven beyond a reasonable doubt." This is how the legal system works.

I think the faith world is much more like the legal world than the mathematical one. To me - the preponderance of the evidence suggests that religions and gods are human constructs that developed over time for various purposes - but primarily to expain the inexplicable, to provide a sense of continuity after death, and to explain a pervasive human question: why? You obviously think that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of an existent god, and died on the cross to redeem you from your sins.

We start with different experiences and different presuppositions - so we end at different conclusions.

True, that...

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, I did not miss the silk, that is exactly what I was looking for and feeling for. There as no way that fern was connected to anything - I spend over ten minutes trying to find a connection - to anything. I did not originally assume a non-natural reason.

Seer - I wasn't there, so I doubt any/all of the possible explanations are going to be satisfactory to you. Suffice it to say, the story of a fragment of fern appearing to float in a forest is not sufficient for me to upend my worldview, especially when the self-same illusion is regularly manufactured by illusionists the world over. I'm not sure it would be enough even if it happened to me - but that would depend on the extent to which I was able to test the circumstances.

That you view it as affirmation of your worldview and a sign of your god is clear. It is even understandable, given your starting place. It simply is not enough for me.

Christ did not claim to be a son of God, that would not be remarkable, men and angels can claimed that in the Old Testament, but the (definite article) Son of God, hence the charge of blasphemy.

I would adjust your statement as follows: "Christ is not recorded as claiming to be a son of God, that would not be remarkable, men and angels can claimed that in the Old Testament, but rather he is recorded as claiming to be the (definite article) Son of God, decades after the events in which he is said to have made those claims, hence the charge of blasphemy.

I simply do not see this as compelling. The evidence about malleable memory is simply too high, and the evidence of a developing theology both within Paul's letters, between those letters and the later gospels, between the gospels themselves, and between the various books in the NT based on their time of authorship, is simply to overwhelming for me.

But I'm speaking of the earliest known Christian texts and the fact that we have no evidence of a progression of theology concerning Sonship.

I've given you the evidence I see, Seer. My days of diving deep into scriptural exegesis are behind me, but there is clearly evidence of a progressing theology in the various books of the NT. I'm not sure why you do not see it - but it is consistent, and it continues AFTER the writings of these books as the theologies of dual nature, trinity and other such concepts are hammered out.

It is probably a major source of our disconnect. Although my path to atheism did not start with my study of church history (it started before), that was definitely part of my exploration that led me in the direction I have gone.

[seer]

Seer - I wasn't there, so I doubt any/all of the possible explanations are going to be satisfactory to you. Suffice it to say, the story of a fragment of fern appearing to float in a forest is not sufficient for me to upend my worldview, especially when the self-same illusion is regularly manufactured by illusionists the world over. I'm not sure it would be enough even if it happened to me - but that would depend on the extent to which I was able to test the circumstances.

That is the point Carp, I have witnessed something you haven't, I know the reality of it. It wasn't an illusion. I mean it comes down to you taking my word for it or not. This I suspect would be the case for most such non-natural events. They are often local with only a handful of witnesses. So logically I don't see how miracles can be categorically rejected. One must be open minded, doesn't one?

I would adjust your statement as follows: "Christ is not recorded as claiming to be a son of God, that would not be remarkable, men and angels can claimed that in the Old Testament, but rather he is recorded as claiming to be the (definite article) Son of God, decades after the events in which he is said to have made those claims, hence the charge of blasphemy.

I simply do not see this as compelling. The evidence about malleable memory is simply too high, and the evidence of a developing theology both within Paul's letters, between those letters and the later gospels, between the gospels themselves, and between the various books in the NT based on their time of authorship, is simply to overwhelming for me.

Carp, I'm going to repeat. Some events are burned into our memories. A friend raising a little girl from the dead, a friend coming back from the dead, a friend claiming to be THE Son of God would fall into that category. I know in my own life some life changing encounters never fade - as a kid I loved President Kennedy - I remember the day he was shot, I remember the news coming over the PA in our school, I remember them letting school out early. I remember coming home and seeing my mother and aunts sitting in front of the TV crying. Not all memories are that malleable. Never mind the fact that there is zero evidence for a developing theology. There is a high Christology in the letters of Paul and Sonship. Mark, the oldest Gospel, has the claim of Sonship, and as far as Christology Mark has many more recorded miracles of Christ than the later Gospel John - by far. So where you get this developing theology is beyond me.

It is probably a major source of our disconnect. Although my path to atheism did not start with my study of church history (it started before), that was definitely part of my exploration that led me in the direction I have gone.

OK...

[carpedm9587]

That is the point Carp, I have witnessed something you haven't, I know the reality of it. It wasn't an illusion. I mean it comes down to you taking my word for it or not. This I suspect would be the case for most such non-natural events. They are often local with only a handful of witnesses. So logically I don't see how miracles can be categorically rejected. One must be open minded, doesn't one?

Seer, the pattern of history is that what appears to be "super-natural" one day becomes an explained phenomenon the next. I have never seen the reverse. People point to the "floating above the bed" experience after being pronounced clinically dead (and then coming back) as proof of an immaterial soul and an afterlife, but a doctor conducting brain surgery (which often has the patient awake to report sensation changes) accidentally stimulated a part of the brain and the patient reported being "out of their body and floating." The phenomenon was perfectly repeatable. The working theory is that this part of the brain governs the "body map" we all work with, and stimulating simply shifted that map's orientation.

Yes - I have an "anti-supernatural" bias - because people too quickly jump to "super-natural" only to later find a perfectly rational explanation for the event. And because I too have experienced illusions that seemed all too real (the event that actually triggered what would turn out to be my journey from Christianity and theism) only to discover later that my own brain/mind had conspired to present a vivid illusion to my eyes. The event started me down the path of looking for other such presumptions in my life.

So I will look at events someone presents me with - and I am open to the idea that you experienced the event as you described it. But until there is demonstrable evidence of a supernatural force in the universe - I'm not going to jump to "supernatural" explanations. I will look for naturalistic explanations. If I cannot find one, I am quite fine with "I don't know." It would require an event that is counter to established "natural laws" to truly shake me - and even then I would likely be skeptical. If an apparition appeared before me, claimed to be Jesus of Nazareth, told me he loved me, and then vanished - I would start by having my head checked for a brain tumor or other abnormality.

Now - if that apparition predicted three (or any number of) things that would happen to me with incredible precision and they actually occurred as predicted, I would probably cease to be atheist.

Carp, I'm going to repeat. Some events are burned into our memories. A friend raising a little girl from the dead, a friend coming back from the dead, a friend claiming to be THE Son of God would fall into that category. I know in my own life some life changing encounters never fade - as a kid I loved President Kennedy - I remember the day he was shot, I remember the news coming over the PA in our school, I remember them letting school out early. I remember coming home and seeing my mother and aunts sitting in front of the TV crying. Not all memories are that malleable. Never mind the fact that there is zero evidence for a developing theology. There is a high Christology in the letters of Paul and Sonship. Mark, the oldest Gospel, has the claim of Sonship, and as far as Christology Mark has many more recorded miracles of Christ than the later Gospel John - by far. So where you get this developing theology is beyond me.

I will leave the lack of evidence for a developing theology aside. We are apparently not going to agree on that. The developing theology is very clear to me in the pattern of the NT, but it does not appear that you see it or acknowledge it. My experience is that discussions along that line tend to not go anywhere. We can look at individual passages, and people will see different things in those passages based on the existing beliefs they bring to them. I saw the developing theology when I was Christian and in the seminary - and continue to see it today. You apparently did not and do not. So be it.

As for memory malleability, your memories of JFK are most likely a jumble of things that actually happened as you remember them, things that did not, and things that didn't actually happen to you but you heard the stories told by others and incorporated them into your own memory. Studies have shown how malleable the memory is, how easy it is to actually implant a memory of an event the person never experienced - and that this regularly happens under the force of communal pressure. Your confidence in "memory" is not supportable. Even the legal system knows that eye witness testimony is hifghly unreliable: six people seeing the same event are likely to have widely varying reports of "what happened" based on the angle of their perspective, the previous biases they brought to the experience, the number of times they have related the story, the number of people who have shared their perspective with them, and the length of time that has passed since the event.

At Christmas dinner a few years back, we were relating stories about our childhood years. I related a story of something that happened to me when I was a in first grade. I could see it unfolding in my memory as I told the story. The memory was vivid. When I was done, my younger brothers and sisters, in-laws, and non-family members present all laughed at the humor of the event, but I saw my parents and my older brother exchanging looks and asked them if I had gotten something wrong. There was a pause, and then my mother looked at me and said, "No, you got the whole story right - except that it didn't happen to you. That happened to Dan." Dan is my older brother. I had heard them relate this story multiple times as a child, and I had slowly incorporated the event in my own memory, and then related the story and, somewhere - somehow, I became the primary actor in the story. I had vivid memories of it. I still do. It is hard for me to believe that is not actually my memory. If anyone but my parents and older brother had said, "that didn't happen to you" I would have laughed in their faces. But they provided me with the context and backstory - and it became clear the memory was false. Yet it persists.

So now you are asking me to believe that the writings of a group of men, writing three decades after the events they report, after 30+ years of story telling, preaching, and relating, some of which are some fantastical events, that all of these stories are to be 100% trusted as 100% accurate of the events they relate? Sorry - I cannot follow you there. I am too familiar with the literature on memory, group memory, and the history of the period. What I see is the writings of a faith community - not a historical text. I see the relating of a theology - not a history book. I recognize you do not see the same - and you are certainly welcome to your faith. But I cannot adopt that faith because it requires me to set aside too much I know about "how the world works," and build a faith on things that simply cannot be shown to be true, and claims that are fantastical and lack a support for their accuracy.

[seer]

As for memory malleability, your memories of JFK are most likely a jumble of things that actually happened as you remember them, things that did not, and things that didn't actually happen to you but you heard the stories told by others and incorporated them into your own memory. Studies have shown how malleable the memory is, how easy it is to actually implant a memory of an event the person never experienced - and that this regularly happens under the force of communal pressure. Your confidence in "memory" is not supportable. Even the legal system knows that eye witness testimony is hifghly unreliable: six people seeing the same event are likely to have widely varying reports of "what happened" based on the angle of their perspective, the previous biases they brought to the experience, the number of times they have related the story, the number of people who have shared their perspective with them, and the length of time that has passed since the event.

Sorry Carp, this is apples and oranges. What I remember about the Kennedy assassination is correct. NOT every detail, but the main recollections are dead on, up to a few years ago I would have had other witnesses to confirm my memory. And that is the point, out of the ordinary or life changing events tend to stick with us. And if you have a number of living witnesses, that is more confirmation. You are NOT going to forget if your buddy Joe went around claiming that he was THE Son of God. You are NOT going to forget if he raised someone from the dead. You are NOT going to forget if he came back from the dead. I don't care if these events happened 50 years ago. You know I am right, you just feel the need to gainsay.

Here is a recollection I just found concerning Kennedy, very similar to mine.

"I was in fourth grade, and they announced that the president was shot on the school loudspeaker. They
let out school early because everyone was in a state of shock, and I ran home to tell my mother, trying to
beat my sister to be the first with the news. So I burst in through the front door shouting, 'Mom, the
president's been shot!'

"Of course, my mother already knew and had the TV on. We were glued to it through the announcement of
his death and then the days that followed, with the funeral."
http://www.crainsdetroit.com/article...n-kennedy-died

[carpedm9587]

Sorry Carp, this is apples and oranges. What I remember about the Kennedy assassination is correct. NOT every detail, but the main recollections are dead on, up to a few years ago I would have had other witnesses to confirm my memory. And that is the point, out of the ordinary or life changing events tend to stick with us. And if you have a number of living witnesses, that is more confirmation. You are NOT going to forget if your buddy Joe went around claiming that he was THE Son of God. You are NOT going to forget if he raised someone from the dead. You are NOT going to forget if he came back from the dead. I don't care if these events happened 50 years ago. You know I am right, you just feel the need to gainsay.

Here is a recollection I just found concerning Kennedy, very similar to mine.

No - it's not apples and oranges. I didn't say "all memories are bunk." I said that our memory structure is highly malleable. Did everything you remember about the JFK day happen to you exactly as you remember it. That is actually highly unlikely. Some of it is. Some of it happened in slightly different ways. And some of what you remember are likely memories you incorporated by reading such descriptions as the one offered. That is what memory is and what memory does. I too have memories of the day JFK died. I KNOW some of them have been shifted over time because I have been faced with the evidence of it. For example, I distinctly remember sitting in the living room with both of my parents watching the news report - but my mother clarified that my dad was a trucker and was away that day - so he could not have been there. I distinctly remember watching the news reports, but even that was skewed - the zabruder tape clearly shows the car traveling left-to-right with the curve in the road curving away to the left. I remember the car traveling the opposite direction with the same curve in the road.

So did the "witnesses" recount exactly what happened as it happened? Possible. Were the stories exaggerated to lend them more spiritual authority? Possible. Were some of the stories mis-remembered? Possible. Were some of the stories a body of legends that grew, and were incorporated into individual and collective memories? Possible.

I realize you have to dismiss these as even possible. To accept these as possible is to bring into question the very foundations of your belief system. I do not have that investment, so I can look at the science of memory and apply it here as I would in any situation. I can apply my knowledge of early christian history, especially the first 70 years after the death of Jesus. I cannot accept your "absolute certainty" as supportable. The science (biological, psychological, and social) simply doesn't support it. For these (and other) reasons, I cannot base a theistic belief system on the writings of the new OR old testaments.

[seer]

Oh, so you mean God's law is subjective only to him? Maybe we should spend some time defining terms. But I don't understand what people mean when they say morality is grounded in God. It sounds good, but I'm not sure what they mean. We cannot be good apart from God, but I don't think that is what is meant.

But here is what I'd like to emphasize, if all morality is subjective, then "love fulfils the law" (Rom. 13:8) is not an objective principle. But it's clearly stated as an objective principle, and we can see the reasonableness of this principle.

Blessings,
Lee

Lee, God's law is subjective to Him, it is His law, He is the subject. It is authoritative because He is the Creator and has the right to define the terms. And it is grounded in His nature, it springs from His moral character. Love fulfills the law because by nature God is love, so the law reflects His nature.

[carpedm9587]

Damn - it's "Zapruder" - not "Zabruder."

That's what happens when they put those letters so close on the keyboard!

[seer]

So did the "witnesses" recount exactly what happened as it happened? Possible. Were the stories exaggerated to lend them more spiritual authority? Possible. Were some of the stories mis-remembered? Possible. Were some of the stories a body of legends that grew, and were incorporated into individual and collective memories? Possible.

Carp, if a friend of yours came back from the dead would you ever forget it? No matter how many years you lived?