Why Christianity Fails in Terms of the Evidence

[thedoc]

Let me just get this straight, because I can hardly believe I'm reading this in a philosophy forum. The proposition is that two thousand years ago a dead bloke came to life again and then rose holus bolus into the sky. In the 21st century a group of intelligent and mostly well-read people are discussing whether this is a true story or not. Does that about sum it up or am I missing something?

The creationists commonly use the argument, "If you weren't there to see it, than you can't know that it is true." yet they hold up the Bible which is a record of events 200 years old and older, and claim that it is absolutely true, even though none of them were there to witness any of the events or the writing of the Bible. We are to accept the words written in the Bible but reject any written account that we did not witness and write down ourselves. A double standard of written records as evidence.

[Dubious]

If we do decide to take any historical facts seriously, then the historicity of these events would surely be worthy of careful historical analysis, not mere dismissal, if for no other reason than that conclusions one way or other play for such practical stakes.
But thinking these things through is an intellectual activity, and dismissing them is just a hobby; so I think more people do the latter than the former.

The prerequisite in taking historical facts seriously presupposes that they CAN happen or HAVE happened. This seriously negates resurrections except as so elegantly and often described by myth and metaphor. These define their own value constellations which justifiably denigrates any affirmation of it being actually historical as nothing less than debasement. Historicity, like nature itself, operates within a range of probabilities. Rising or raising from the dead remains to the fullest extent ultra vires to any such process.

[Obvious Leo]

Judging by uwot's comment, no historical facts are to be accepted.

I don't think uwot intended his comment to be interpreted in this light. You seem to be overlooking the fact that what is being claimed here is a physical impossibility and therefore can be dismissed solely on these grounds alone. Are you suggesting that all the other physical impossibilities which are claimed in the Christian bible are also matters of historical fact or are you merely making an exception in this case. If so, on what grounds, bearing in mind that the convention in philosophy is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

But thinking these things through is an intellectual activity, and dismissing them is just a hobby; so I think more people do the latter than the former.

So you've thought this through thoroughly and decided that on the balance of probabilities a bloke died and three days later he came back to life and took off into the sky. If this passes for intellectual activity in your mind then I reckon you should get out more.

[Immanuel Can]

The prerequisite in taking historical facts seriously presupposes that they CAN happen or HAVE happened. This seriously negates resurrections except as so elegantly and often described by myth and metaphor. These define their own value constellations which justifiably denigrates any affirmation of it being actually historical as nothing less than debasement. Historicity, like nature itself, operates within a range of probabilities. Rising or raising from the dead remains to the fullest extent ultra vires to any such process.

You're incorrect on several points. One is that you misunderstand what ancient peoples meant when they called something "miraculous." They meant, "A thing which never happens...except in very rare cases, and never by any expected mechanism." They did not mean "a natural phenomenon," or even "something deducible from laws of nature," but rather, "something contrary to all known natural phenomena." Dead men don't rise, usually, I think you'll agree. So if if one ever did, that would assuredly be a miracle. That is, "miracle" was a word they used to describe a rarity, a supernatural occurrence, not a natural phenomenon.

For that reason, all you can say is that you agree with their assessment of regular phenomena....that resurrections are not diurnal. To this, they and I would simply say, "There's one exception." And your knowledge of the regularities would not give you any reason to know whether or not we were right. For about the regular cases, we all agree. It's about the question of whether or not the Son of God is a regular case that we disagree.

However, on the other side, we have quite a bit. First, we have the Torah prophecies. Then we have the fourfold testimony of witnesses, plus the other 500, the very strange conduct of the Roman authorities and the Pharisees, and the subsequent testimony of abundant witnesses to the resurrected Christ, witnesses who died for their convictions of the truth of what they said. Never mind about the people today who claim a personal knowledge of God through the One who was thus resurrected. That's a significant historical testimony: considerably more than we have for any other ancient source.

Quite a bit is against your cynical view, but nothing in your favour.

[uwot]

Judging by uwot's comment, no historical facts are to be accepted.

That's because you are a poor judge. Your "Reductio Ad Absurdum" is premised on your belief that three people's say so is enough to establish any claim as historical fact.

But I'm going to assume he's merely being wry, since that is clearly an unlivable conclusion.

He is not being wry, he is pointing out that your criterion for historical truth is absurdly credulous.

[Immanuel Can]

That's because you are a poor judge. Your "Reductio Ad Absurdum" is premised on your belief that three people's say so is enough to establish any claim as historical fact.

You're misjudging. A "Reductio" is a technique of argument by which the opponent's argument is reduced in such a way as to show the absurdity of its suppositions. I was not stating my own beliefs, but exposing the illogic of the poster's method by taking his pattern of reasoning to its logical conclusion with and absurd case. That is to say, if 2,000 years turns a belief unsupportable, then 3 minutes will do the same trick. Nothing about the time difference is relevant to truth-value. That was the whole point.

You and I are not disagreeing about that.

But I'm going to assume he's merely being wry, since that is clearly an unlivable conclusion.

He is not being wry, he is pointing out that your criterion for historical truth is absurdly credulous.

Again, you've misunderstood. And in attributing wryness to you, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, since your statement would not be plausible if taken literally. I would not attribute an irrational claim such as that to you unless I was certain you intended it sincerely. You've mistaken my charitable response for an unkind one.

You and I don't always agree, I know. But in this particular case, any disagreement would seem unnecessary.

[Obvious Leo]

IC. You have yet to explain how something which is known to be physically impossible can logically be claimed as a historical fact. Kindly address this question.

[Dubious]

It's about the question of whether or not the Son of God is a regular case that we disagree.

More accurately it's about whether there actually was a 'son of god' walking the earth. What would the function or mission of such a Being have been since obviously it failed miserably - certainly not the god-like success expected from a god.

This story has been confirmed so often as nothing more than another iteration of the same paradigm which ruled much of the Middle East at that time. Miracles abounded, more than you can count. The historical Jesus was a thoroughly Jewish preacher put to death as a matter of routine by the Romans for causing problems at Passover. The story continued because of Paul and his more ecumenical acceptance of non-Jews into the fold. It was Paul's accomplishment to resurrect Jesus and confer a divinity that was common and easily understood by those ancient populations by reifying its main metaphors.

[Walker]

Ahhh. Wholesomeness.

[Immanuel Can]

IC. You have yet to explain how something which is known to be physically impossible can logically be claimed as a historical fact. Kindly address this question.

Gladly.

Your words "physically impossible" are a logical fallacy there. It is illogical to deduce that something is "impossible" merely because of the existence of certain observable physical regularities in the present: the ancients agree that such regularities exist -- hence they spoke of a "miracle," not a "regular event." All you can deduce from the claim of a miracle is that something extraordinary is being claimed -- not that it did not happen. For were the means of the irregularity not supernatural and singular, it would not constitute a "miracle" at all. You have to judge the claim of a "miracle," not merely the claim of an "impossibility."

Hence, a claim about a "miraculous" event can only be adjudicated on whether or not it *did* happen -- whether it *could not* cannot be decided in advance without...

a) the mistake of thinking natural "laws" are somehow metaphysically binding, which completely misunderstands the metaphor "law" when used in the phrase "natural law," as if we were speaking of something like human laws, which have some kind of obligatory force; natural "laws" mean only "regularities", and

b) the erroneous presumption that no supernatural means for such a thing exist, i.e. that God does not exist.

Now, this thing b) is the very thing which, by definition of the case, is under dispute, cannot satisfactorily be settled unilaterally, by supposition. One is not justified in using the expression "is known," because that's not "known" at all: it's the matter in question. And certainly, if God does exist, and if, as Christians believe, He has creatorial power, then there would be nothing "impossible" in Him raising the dead.

The matter of His existence must be settled first: then the question of the miraculous can be addressed: but if He exists, then the miraculous is no logical problem at all.

Consequently, whether the miracle *did* or *did not* happen can only be settled on the historical data. And this I have outlined briefly already, and referred to the associated literature. If you read it, you'll see the case and be able to decide for yourself.

____________________


But all this is, for the moment a different point from the one made by the original poster. The clear point is that his alleged disproof contains such an obvious flaw that even a dedicated Atheist (provided he knows anything about logic) should detect it immediately, and say, "Listen, chum: we can do better than that."

I was simply astonished that they did not do so. It has to make us all marvel that critics of Christianity are so easily impressed with such transparently bad reasoning. Could it be that they are not bothering to exercise their critical faculties at all, in regard to their own worldview? That's a conclusion hard to resist, given the present case.

[Obvious Leo]

The matter of His existence must be settled first: then the question of the miraculous can be addressed: but if He exists, then the miraculous is no logical problem at all.

In other words the miraculous is contingent on the existence of a miracle-worker. By assuming as a premise that which you then attempt to derive as a conclusion you conflate reasoning with rationalising and form the perfect circular argument. You might get away with it in a religion forum but not here, son.

[attofishpi]

IC. You have yet to explain how something which is known to be physically impossible can logically be claimed as a historical fact. Kindly address this question.

What 'knowledge' do you have that a man returning to walk amongst us having first been witnessed as dead is logically impossible?

[Immanuel Can]

In other words the miraculous is contingent on the existence of a miracle-worker. By assuming as a premise that which you then attempt to derive as a conclusion you conflate reasoning with rationalising and form the perfect circular argument. You might get away with it in a religion forum but not here, son.

Sorry: I hate to contradict you, but you've made an obvious error in logic there.

Of course the miraculous can only happen if there is a miracle-worker. It's also true that art only happens if there's an artist, that engineering only happens if there's an engineer, and that quantity surveying only happens if there is a quantity surveyor. So I'm afraid you've said nothing particularly insightful there.

That a miracle would require an Agent capable of producing a miracle can surely surprise no one.

[Obvious Leo]

IC. You have yet to explain how something which is known to be physically impossible can logically be claimed as a historical fact. Kindly address this question.

What 'knowledge' do you have that a man returning to walk amongst us having first been witnessed as dead is logically impossible?

I didn't say that. I said that dead people cannot come back to life. If you wish to claim otherwise then the burden of proof lies with you.

IC. Where is my error in logic? First you say this:

Sorry: I hate to contradict you, but you've made an obvious error in logic there.

and then you say this:

Of course the miraculous can only happen if there is a miracle-worker.

If I've made an error in logic then so have you because you're merely repeating exactly what I said.

[thedoc]

IC. You have yet to explain how something which is known to be physically impossible can logically be claimed as a historical fact. Kindly address this question.

What 'knowledge' do you have that a man returning to walk amongst us having first been witnessed as dead is logically impossible?

I didn't say that. I said that dead people cannot come back to life. If you wish to claim otherwise then the burden of proof lies with you.

You are claiming that a person, once dead, cannot come back to live, so it is up to you to prove that claim. There are numerous accounts of people who have been pronounced dead, and later came beck to life.