768 thoughts on “I lost my faith in ID”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The Skeptical Zone
"I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible that you may be mistaken."
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s not. You missed a tiny detail: until proven otherwise. It’s not circular, also, because it’s based on what we experience as directly as we can experience anything. It’s not circular, also, because It doesn’t carry the burden of proof.
If that’s what brute fact is, then your magical being in the sky would qualify as a brute fact in your worldview. It “exists because it exists.” No reason why it exists, it just does. AT least in my worldview I’m talking about the points where our knowledge finds a boundary, and it’s a brute fact only for the time being, rather than by decree.
A fantasy is not a complete explanation of our existence. So, if a false “epistemology” (quotes because I don’t define epistemology that way) makes your worldview “better” I’d rather stay with my incomplete one.
Explanation means this is how it works, this is how we reason about it, these are the sources of evidence, etc. Sometimes I di present arguments, which you jump over, so I doubt that you have the moral standing to tell if I asserted, explained, or argued.
I’m not having any difficulty defending anything. I do not need to defend anything. It’s you who defends a fantasy. I have both my feet planted on as solid a ground as humanity can handle. It’s fantasy believers who find it hard to understand why we don’t accept their fantasies, but it’s pretty clear to me.
Again, no circular reasoning anywhere, just placing the burden of proof where it belongs. That cannot be circular, since there’s nothing to defend. It’s the most natural status.
I cannot know that, I do not know what of anything he might defend, you might mean, and I have read very little by Dawkins. So, I’d have to read what he’s written, and you’d have to be clearer about what you mean. I have no interest in defending him though. However, given how easily you jump over the fundamental problems of what you defend, how easily you jump over explanations, I doubt that you have interpreted Dawkins fairly.
OMagain,
What I don’t have time to defend is poor argument. Logical fallacies, ignoring evidence and making up stories out of thin air as counter arguments.
The timeline is argued to have a range of 3 to 60 years after the resurrection. The earliest are the creeds inside Pauls writing and the latest are Johns writings on the Island of Patmos.
What I have found interesting is the people like Carrier have a reason for trying to argue against the historical Jesus. His likeness to the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament is too close if he is an historic figure.
The problem is that there is too much documentation around ancient times to make that argument with any credibility.
They are documented. What you guys are doing is categorical denial of evidence. Your argument is going right into the strength of the Case for Christianity and Messianic Judaism.
Where?
Entropy,
Until proven otherwise? This paragraph is a poster child for logical fallacies as it denies circular reasoning through a burden shift. Just say you don’t want to believe in God and we can call it a day. I think this conversation has run its course.
Alan Fox,
Can you follow the post as this has been discussed already.
colewd,
All I’ve seen is claims that bits of text made “prescient” predictions. Is that it?
Tell him he just hates God! 😉
Alan Fox,
What has been mentioned are The writing, the gospels, Acts and the Historical account by Flavius Josephus.
Alan Fox,
Its hard to hate something if you don’t believe He exists 🙂
That passage is generally accepted as an interpolation, not by Josephus.
Well, exactly!
Not many people loved Voldemort.
Alan Fox,
Not any more. I already argued this point. It is very hard to change a widely published document and get away with it. The belief is that Josephus information came from Luke or a common source Luke used.
http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf
colewd,
I could just as wel refer to Carrier. I’ve had a look at the Wikipedia entry which seems to accept there are interpolations..
Alan Fox,
He has to take this position with the very difficult argument is is trying to make. Verification of the gospels by the one of ancient times top historians falsifies his entire narrative.
He has to take a ridiculous potion of Christians making a different story and intercepting all the copies and changing them. No one really accepts that the Josephus story has been modified by more than a few words. The most parsimonious explanation is that it has changed very little if at all.
The reason for the historical Jesus deniers like Carrier and Price is that it is the only way to sensibly deny his Divinity. If he is historical then you have to deal with his matching of Messianic OT prophecy which is very difficult.
This doesn’t make things all that much clearer. For one thing, scholars today regard a single author as having written both Luke and Acts. I suppose it’s not unreasonable to speculate that this author and Josephus referred to the same source document, though it would be unlike Josephus not to mention his source.
And while it’s difficult to modify a widely published document, history suggests that the books of the bible spent several centuries passing through a “bottleneck” during which the early church had the only copies.
I’m aware of the Arabic translation of Josephus which mostly matches modern translations except for a couple of key sentences no Jew would have written, since these two sentences restate official Christian doctrine about the divinity of Christ, something rejected by the Jews. The passage in question is at least partially an interpolation.
However, the Arabic document dates from about a thousand years after Josephus, long after the early church preserved their version of Josephus. In fact, the physically oldest document we have of this period dates from the 11th century.
And I note once again that the anomalous total silence concerning the first century CE remains a mystery. Writings from this period should be both voluminous and carefully preserved IF the gospels are even remotely correct. And there aren’t any.
colewd,
I have to say that, for myself, this is all very much beside the point. I have no problem accepting that the Biblical Jesus is based on a real person or persons. I think the divinity claims are embellishments.
Well, not really. Please bear in mind that there is no such verification, except in the convictions of Christians. Carrier is saying that IF the Josephus passage is an interpolation, then everything else we have available today hangs together. And IF that passage is genuine, why do we have no other surviving material supporting it outside the bible itself.
And as a footnote, Carrier attempts to document (I’m not an authority, so he might be fabricating this) that in the last century BCE there were lots of documents written by multiple Jewish sects (mystery cults, at the time) which contained lots of prophesies. What has been preserved is a combination of only those prophesies which came about, modification of prophecies to make them match what later occurred, and misrepresentation of what occurred to make them match prophecy.
As a matter of perspective, imagine if all history of the last century passed though a period where ONLY Republican politicians and Trumpies got to decide what was preserved, and only these people had the access to modify it all if they should choose to do so. Now imagine historians 2000 years from now poring over these documents trying to reconstruct whether or not Trump The Divine ever existed. Further, imagine that most of these historians are devout Trumpians who worship Trump Son Of God in church every week. Imagine the task of verification facing a despised atrumpiest!
And I have no problem accepting that the biblical Jesus was confected as a composite of multiple mythical figures of the time. Because regardless, the teachings of Christ are important, and provide what I consider outstanding rules to live by, with our without religious faith.
What I DO have a problem with is that conservative Christian social preferences (anti-gay, anti-minority, anti-abortion, anti-women) are exactly the opposite of the teachings of Christ in the gospels. What happened?
Indeed! (Some) Inerrantists seem to lose the commitment to literal reading when it comes to Jesus’ exhortations to love your enemy, give your wealth away and so on.
Alan Fox,
I accept you have landed here. I don’t think it is based on careful analysis of the facts. Again the problem you face here is the remarkable matching between Jesus life death and resurrection and the OT prophecies given minimal facts if you want to take a skeptical approach.
Here is Gary Habermas argument.
Flint,
You are discounting documentation contained in bible based on what? Carrier and Price are blowing smoke up your keister.
Alan Fox,
I agree that the emphasis on these issues with the exception of late term abortion is a mistake.
Earlier term abortion is the most difficult moral issue of our time. I don’t see any direct comment on this in any part of the Bible with the acceptation of Baal worship which would be more applicable to late term abortion.
I understand not wanting to empower those abusing the Gospels do drive social issues that are not truly Biblical in nature. We should, however, not distort the evidence because of this.
That’s undeniably true. I was never heavily indoctrinated in Christianity and haven’t lived in a culture where I encountered Christians of the proseletysing sort. I don’t have an emotional need for a religion and nor do I find much intellectual appeal. I’m outside looking in with mild curiosity.
Maybe so, but I would agree it’s sensible to be skeptical of material written by devout believers and with essentially NO relevant external materials. The fact that the bible was written in different languages, and languages different from ours, in a totally different culture, makes things harder.
Let’s say I was brought up believing in the historical accuracy of the tales of Paul Bunyan. I might, if I tried, be skeptical of these tales for two main reasons – because there are no external references to Bunyan, and because the events and characters depicted have no parallels in real life elsewhere. So I would discount “documentation” contained in my book of Bunyan tales for these reasons.
And this is not so far-fetched. Consider that like Bunyan, Christ performed miracles without parallel otherwise in everyday life, and there are no external references which themselves weren’t subject to editing. Perhaps the most significant difference is that Bunyan lived much more recently, and there is plenty of literature about the logging industry otherwise. So who would be blowing smoke, the authors of Paul Bunyan or those who doubt he ever lived?
And, since you’re likely to dismiss this argument as silly, bear in mind the firm belief devout Mormons have in the Nephites, Lamanites, Jaredites, and Mulekites. This despite the rather unlikely events depicted, the lack of any other source material, or other evidences. Should I refuse to discount the Book of Mormon for these reasons? A good many fully qualified, well funded and serious Mormon archaeologists (well respected in the archaeological community) have been diligently searching for ANY external evidence of these peoples and events, however indirect. So far without even a hint of success. Would they be foolish to start to doubt?
Argued by who and on what basis? Is the evidence for that argument to be found inside the bible or outside the bible in historical records?
It would be “remarkable” if the writers of the New Testament did not know about the Old Testament prophecies. Whereas if they did, it would be utterly trivial for them to write the New Testament such that what they write “confirms” or “verifies” the prophecies that they already knew about.
The evidence is just the gospels. The gospels are evidence for what the gospels are claiming. The evidence for what the gospels say are the gospels themselves.
It’s absurd. You are using the bible as evidence for the bible.
As above, the documentation for the claims of the bible is documented in the bibles claims for the documentation in the bible.
Hmm….
Flint,
I applaud your effort to persuade colewd that the presence of a factual assertion in a text cannot count as evidence for that assertion, nor can any consistency across multiple texts count as evidence for any of those assertions, individually or collectively.
Nevertheless, those efforts will be entirely wasted on colewd. Some people are ineducable. If you want to expend your energy on a fruitless enterprise, by all means. But if you are hoping that colewd will somehow become enlightened as to the depth of his foolishness, you will be gravely disappointed.
OMagain,
It shows a shockingly profound lack of self-awareness for someone to accuse those whom he disagrees with as engaged in circular reasoning while doing so himself at the exact same time.
Is it really worth your time to try and engage with someone who is this profoundly lacking in self-awareness and training in critical thinking?
What burden shift. It’s always being the positive claim that carries the burden. If I don’t see pink dragons I can assume they don’t exist until I’m shown a pink dragon. Same for your fantasies. Otherwise we’d be “circular reasoning” just against every fantasy imagined by just anybody. Come on Bill, this is pre-kindergarten philosophy.
What I want to believe doesn’t have any weight on what’s out there. I discovered this when I approached Darwin’s book wanting to have a good laugh, yet discovering an excellent scientific book. Not what I wanted, yet what I’ve got.
The question is how did they become devout believers?
There is good reason to believe that J Smith was a false prophet especially if you put the claims in the Book of Mormon to the Deuteronomy 18 test.
Laughable, you seem to imagine that Josephus was printed by a large publishing house. Sorry, it wasn’t like that for most of the time since humanity started writing. Not until the invention of the printing press.
Sure some did especially Peter, Paul and Mathew. Do you believe is Carriers argument?
OMagain,
You need to follow the arguments. The Gospels are a piece of the evidence.
Entropy,
Your positive claim is that something does not exist because you cannot see it. I have never seen an electron yet I believe they exist do to inductive reasoning. If I were to claim that electrons were magical particles I would expect a challenge from you.
No, they aren’t. The Gospels are the source of the claims for which evidence is needed. The Gospels are not themselves evidence of anything.
Kantian Naturalist,
A document with a written account of an event is not evidence?
That’s not a positive claim. The positive claim is that this imaginary being exists. Come on Bill, this is, again, pre-kindergarten philosophy.
I know about the evidence, and I’ve seen some direct effects of electrons. Can I be a tad skeptical about them? I sure can, and there would be nothing wrong about it. I can accept them as a model for something happening at a level where I can know little better. Since the model works, I accept it, but not unconditionally.
I’d say that you have a weird definition of magic, and that the most I can do for you is tell you that electrons are models that seem to explain very well, and directly, some kinds of phenomena, and thus appear to be real. That, if you want to truly know if they do exist you should study philosophy of science and physics. Then I’d leave you to it.
The positive claim is the being exists and now I appeal to evidence either Biblical or based on evidence inside our universe.
The tactic on your side is to make a custom definition of what evidence is. KN does this and so does Alan.
By using the label magical without establishing that the being does not exist your argument becomes circular.
Agreed then on what the positive claim is. Therefore my position is not based on circular reasoning. Why was this so hard for you?
I know you appeal to that “evidence.” I just doubt that you understand what evidence means. Appealing to a book of stories is just that, appealing to a book of stories. Forgive me for being skeptical, but, I repeat, extraordinary claims …
That’s rich. You are the one who puts qualifiers there, like “for the times”. “the gold standard for something written that long ago”. Gilgamesh was written much longer ago. It’s self-consistent. Therefore it’s true. By calling it a gold standard you’re appealing to a custom definition of evidence, and yet another for extraordinary.
Are you saying that the fantasy you believe in is not a magical being who spoke the universe into existence, etc.?
ETA: I’m not establishing that this magical being doesn’t exist for no reason. The absurdity of the many stories is what makes it clear that it’s mere fantasy. If there wasn’t such ridiculously absurd stories, if your reasoning wasn’t philosophically backwards, then we’d have a different situation. But, as it is, my reasoning is sound.
When you insert the word magical you then have made a counter claim that contains an unsupported assumption.
I know exactly what evidence means. I also know the the only way for your argument to hold water is you need to distort that definition.
Fair point.
There is no argument here. You are using labels and assertions. I know what your opinion and I disagree with it. What will change my opinion is evidence based argument.
See ya Bill. Have a great time.
It has often seemed to me that there’s a tension buried deep within the very heart of Christianity about what sin is, and correspondingly, what count as salvation.
On one model, sin is selfishness: sin is greed, putting oneself first, withholding from others, violence, etc. The antidote to sin is caritas or agape, love, kindness, compassion, peace.
On another model, sin is enjoyment: sin is flesh, pleasure, sex, sensuality. The antidote to sin is denial: denying pleasure or allowing pleasure only within narrowly circumscribed boundaries. And this model gives one permission to save others from sin by ensuring that they are not allowed to enjoy themselves either.
So in a very small nutshell, domination — taking away another person’s right to choose — is either the very essence of sin (if one is a liberal Christian) or necessary for saving others from sin (if one is a conservative Christian).
I don’t think it is at all obvious which of the two views of sin is “the correct one”. One can find this tension shot through Paul, Augustine, Aquinas, etc.
Martin Luther King Jr thought he was doing what was required to be a genuine Christian — and so did Bull Conner.
This doesn’t fully address how one strand of American Christianity became Christian Nationalism or wedded to white nationalism, but it does illustrate how deep and pervasive the tension runs throughout the whole tradition.
A written account of an event is not evidence that the event actually took place. It is evidence that the event is believed to have taken place. Some times we have good reasons to accept that the people who wrote that account had good reasons for that belief. And often times we don’t.
Kantian Naturalist,
Definition:
I think it is hard to argue that a Gospel account of the resurrection or empty tomb is not evidence. It is documented and available for us to read.
I concede that evidence has different levels of believability so to argue this is fair game.
By that reasoning, a Harry Potter novel is evidence of the Ministry of Magic.
Kantian Naturalist,
Has reading this caused anyone to believe this is a true claim? If it has not helped convince anyone then I would say this is outside the definition I cited.
Certainly many people read the gospels and believe it is a true claim? Especially since there is corroborating evidence that the authors were describing actual events.
The fact that many people believe that the Gospels are true is not itself evidence that they are, and corroboration for some of the events described in the Gospels is not corroboration of all of those events. For all you know, the Gospel writers assumed that everyone in their audience would implicitly understand that all the supernatural events described in the Gospels were just metaphors, and saw no need to make that explicit.
For someone who claimed that Christianity is epistemologically adequate (and that atheism is not) your grasp of even basic epistemological concepts has yet to be demonstrated.
Kantian Naturalist,
According of the definition I posted if some people believe the writing is true then it is evidence. You are welcome to offer another definition of evidence but I think it is more productive to discuss the quality of the evidence.
If you look at all the evidence including Acts, the Gospels, the writings of Peter Paul James and Jude. The collaboration of Josephus and Tacitus. Also the prophecies that match Jesus life works and death it adds up to a real historical figure vs something the Apostles made up. It also adds up to the fulfillment of the promise God made to Abraham.