Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Life's Paths

I’ve had a number of blog entries on the mind; none are particularly important, compelling or even informative. Some of the same hum-drum.

I thought about writing on the annual “War on Christmas”--this article does such a tremendously comprehensive job, that no additions are necessary. Perhaps a moment of amusement reflecting on the salvo shot by Wintery Knight where he complains…

*WARNING: The following is fairly graphic and if you are easily upset by such images, you may want to skip the following paragraph.

... stores are not stocking enough Christian Christmas Card selections. Mind you, not that Christian Christmas Consumerism Cards are eliminated; only that there are not enough of them.

I am both amused and (I think) a bit offended. Amused, of course, because Christians face such little “persecution” anymore in the United States and United Kingdom, they are forced to make up injustices. They have it so easy, the best they can come up with is they don’t have more choices when buying Christmas Cards at certain stores. (Obviously they could make their own to say whatever they want, OR they could order on-line from a variety of vendors…but we shouldn’t mention that. They have a God-given, Baby-Jesus-came-to-Earth RIGHT to more Christian Christmas Cards at the local Gas Station!)

Offended because they think this is the best an Evil Atheist Conspiracy could do. If you watch cartoons (I have children) the villain often comes up with some ridiculous plan parodying how to take over the world. Like making a ray gun causing people to be addicted to bologna, and the villain will purchase all the bologna in the world, thus taking over the world.

I get the same feeling. We plan to eliminate Christ out of Christmas by reducing the number of Christian Christmas Cards? (How many people even send Christmas Cards anymore? We do, but only to the last bastion that send some back.) That is our secret weapon? Next we plan to force Telegram companies to not work on Christmas Eve, so Christians can’t send Christmas Telegrams. Mwuahahahaha. [What? They don’t do that anymore?]

I finished Dr. Licona’s book The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach and thought of doing a review. Does a good job on providing the historical background—but nothing really groundbreaking, in my opinion. There aren’t any “new” documents to review; everything we have has been reviewed before.

It was the application that felt a bit week. Inevitably, Dr. Licona determined the “best” explanation was that Jesus rose from the dead. He concluded if you are either:

1) a non-theist; or
2) a theist who doesn’t believe in a God who resurrects himself

then you are too biased to be persuaded by the evidence. This only leaves people who believe in a God who resurrects himself…wait…does this mean only people who believe Jesus rose from the Dead can be convinced by the evidence that Jesus rose from the dead? But if they are already convinced, why do they need evidence to prove it?

I’m sure my review would be considered “tainted” because I fall in the wrong group.

Jon, over at Prove Me Wrong asked me to lead a Bible study of non-believers regarding the topic of Resurrection of Jesus. And who should show up? Dave Armstrong. Sadly, he was less than impressed with my performance, writing his own opinion as to the inadequacies of the discussion. Eventually leading to this monster discussion involved numerous people and a wild number of topics, keeping me busy there.

Leading to two other threads, including (to me what is quite bizarre) a thread on whether I had a proper hermeneutic as a Christian on what the Bible teaches about abortion.

And these trivialities have occupied my internet time.

25 comments:

  1. DagoodS,

    Sounds like you're getting worn down by the Internet, which I can totally understand given your very active role and patience to fight through so much crap and seek clarity with people from all sides.

    I'm interested in any more detail around your review of the Licona book. I keep hoping there are a set of facts about the resurrection and NT that separate believers from non-believers, but I guess that's too optimistic.

    I also wonder why I spend so much time on serious religious truth issues now that I'm at least confidently and comfortably an atheist (ex-southern-baptist). Where do you think is a good stopping point for most people? I keep thinking I should be researching investing strategies or vacations or something with a more practical outcome.

    Even so, I really appreciate your writing, you have a great nose for the key issues in a matter and a clear and entertaining writing style.

    Take care,
    Tito

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your critique on licona parallels my main objection of roberts book.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tito Austin,

    The stopping point is where the person desires to stop. You have to decide that yourself. As I am still enjoying discussing biblical points…I do.

    Regarding Licona’s book:

    He does a good job of reviewing the relevant historical documents, including Pauline letters (especially 1 Cor. 15:3-8, obviously), the gospels and Acts. He also reviews non-canonical and non-Christians, including 1 Clement, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, assigning them relative grades as to how historical reliable they are. (You can read some of his book on Google, including this section.) I think he tries to be fair; some Christians may not be happy he assigns a higher historical probability to 1 Clement than the gospels.

    However, I did notice when reviewing the facts, he tended to give everything “possible” and above the same weight. Treating the gospels the same as Pauline letters, for example. Which caused me to wonder what the value was for the weighing in the first place.

    He concluded with three (3) minimal facts: 1) Jesus death by crucifixion, 2) the Disciples saw something they proclaimed as Jesus back from the dead and 3) Paul’s conversion. Then Dr. Licona compared various theories, grading them “pass” or “fail” on: 1) Plausibility, 2) Explanatory scope, 3) Explanatory Power, 4) ad hoc and 5) illumination.

    Not surprisingly, most theories received an “F” or “fail” for most categories…only one received a “P” or pass on all of them. Can you guess which one? Of course—the Resurrection Theory.

    One might ask (I did) how resurrection could pass “plausible” whereas mythical or hallucination theory did not? The answer provided is that it is not plausible for a dead person to naturally rise from the dead, but that is not what Christians claim. They claim Jesus supernaturally rose from the dead, and under that hypothesis, it becomes “plausible.”

    Anyone else catch the bait-and-switch? Let me give you an analogy for how that works…

    I contend my furniture is replaced when I sleep by an exact replica. Not plausible? That is because it may not naturally be plausible, but I contend aliens who have the ability to replace furniture are doing it and under my alien theory, it becomes plausible.

    See what happens? By proposing supernatural, or aliens or undiscovered quantum particle manipulation, we can turn ANYTHING into a “plausible” event. You just have to first believe in the supernatural, or aliens or some crazy pseudo-scientific theory.

    Dr. Licona admitted worldviews (he called them “horizons” for some reason) impact what we are persuaded by. While he admitted his own horizon would impact his outcome, he tended to focus on non-theists and non-resurrection-believing theists.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey DagoodS,

    Thanks for your reply, especially the write-up on Licona's book. That switch at the end reminded me of his long but interesting interview on Luke's Conversations from the Pale Blue Dot podcast: http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=261

    I was surprised there by his willingness to consider non-Christian supernatural claims with a much higher degree of probability as I would think for an educated person. He also pulled that switch on the show saying that if God existed and wanted to raise Jesus from the dead then the probability of it happening would be near 100%. Same supernatural switch-out.

    It is such a shocking assumption to allow in that it surprises me that someone putting in so much hard work on the history would be so sloppy during the final considerations. Getting assumptions out of order seems to be a common mistake in apologetics and I guess human reasoning.

    I still think the battle is done on the epistemological side and our thinking about how easily humans are deceived by their cognitive biases. If we play the probability game, which he's trying to do with the historical method, it seems Hume's report of miracles issue gets you every time.

    It's like suddenly apologists lack imagination into possible ways this story could have made it out without Jesus being God and all or most of the gospels being 100% true.

    I'll take his three facts and feel comfortable without the supernatural take-away.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I was interested in what you had to say about Licona's book. The resurrection is what I've been spending my time studying. It's frustrating to me to continually hear that the gift of faith or a presupposition regarding God's ability to resurrect is required for belief in the resurrection. I suppose I'm hoping that the evidence will clearly land on one side or the other, but I just see conjecture on either side. Was it important for you to develop a likely explanation of the "minimal facts" or of Christian belief in resurrection or are you content to conclude the evidence does not support resurrection without an alternative explantion?

    I read most of the comments over at Dave Armstrong's blog. You're right about it being a monster discussion! It's interesting that you've been discussing matters for years online and that you actually got to meet in person. At times I wondered if he and I were reading the same comments by you. He seemed quite eager to attribute deception and ulterior motives to you. He also loved scrutinizing your "first premises" though I didn't observe him evaluating his own. He seemed to miss the point that you are a naturalist because you reevaluated your first premise regarding belief in God and found the evidence lacking. i know he was using discusion with you as a way of reaching others who are seeking God, but he didn't help bolster my very thin belief.

    Regarding that Bible study, was that all material that you've presented in your blog before, or is some of it new? I'd be interested in seeing you present some of it here. You know, in case you have nothing else to do. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I find it interesting that Christian would complain about lack of Christian cards for sale and call it persecution.

    After all, stores offer what sells. Retailers sell anything anyone will buy. If putting baby Jesus on a card and adding a Bible verse sold millions of cards, that's what the retailers would carry.

    Perhaps Christians need to wake up and realize that most people aren't interested on holiday cards that are too Christian anymore. The number of church-going Christians is dwindling and they blame it all on persecution. You go figure!

    ReplyDelete
  7. DoOrDoNot,

    There wasn’t anything particularly new in my talk, although I have contemplated writing on it for a blog entry. If you are interested, I will devote some time.

    But meanwhile, I wanted to answer your question about an alternative theory. I am comfortable without having a particular theory; however I do present one as a method of argument, as need be. Between us friends…naw…don’t need one.

    I’ll lay some groundwork.

    First, there are many things we don’t know (and may never know) how it happened, but even those inclined to supernaturalism believe it was an unknown natural occurrence. Computers crash inexplicably. Do we think demons invaded the machine? Nope, we re-boot. Some science fiction writer makes up a religion, and the next thing we know, well-respected millionaires are claiming volcanoes were storage units for souls? Imagine explaining how Scientology got its start to someone 2000 years from now! They would call you liar—NO ONE could possibly have bought into that!

    Yet here and now, we see how it naturally occurred.

    Secondly we know so little about the culture of First Century Mediterranean. Our sources are limited. We don’t even fully know the language! 2,000 years later, and we debate over a particular Greek word, and what it meant. We have glimpses of a world very foreign to our own.

    Thirdly, we have such limited knowledge. Just 50 years ago, no one had heard of the Qumran community, that was existing only a few miles from where Jesus walked. Did it impact Christianity or Judaism? Or have no effect. We don’t know what the Herodians (mentioned in the Bible) believed, and can only speculate by their name. The biblical depiction of the Pharisees is vastly different than Josephus. Ever talk to a Jew who is unfamiliar with the New Testament? They are in shock about the description given to Pharisees. (Pharisees were the basis of the rabbinic Judaism we have now.)

    Who is correct?

    It is like we have 60 scattered pieces to a 1,000-piece puzzle, and we are all wrestling over what is in the missing 940 pieces!

    Finally let me give you an example. This is something that it really doesn’t matter whether one holds to a supernatural explanation or natural explanation regarding the Resurrection—it is a mystery.

    Why would the disciples move from Galilee to Jerusalem?

    Remember, family was one’s cultural in-group. Support system, financial support, continuation of name. One’s community, livelihood and station in life was dependent on one’s birthplace. This wasn’t 20th Century, where one could pick up and move to Denver on a job change. One was born, lived and died in the same locale.

    What would cause them to move, en masse from Galilee to Jerusalem? If they were starting a church, it would be natural to start it within one’s own in-group. (Even the rich man in the rich man/Lazarus story wanted to tell his own family first! Luke 16:27-28)

    And the split is not minor. We have Mark, Matthew, John 21 and Gospel of Peter (probably) indicating the church would start in Galilee. We have Luke and John 20 starting it in Jerusalem. Paul only knows a Jerusalem church, where he stayed in Peter’s house. (How did Peter get a house in Jerusalem? Did he leave his wife behind?)

    Here is a major detail, yet regardless where one stands on the reason for Christianity’s start, there is no easy explanation for the difference.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Lorena,

    I found it sad. And I quite agree, if a retailer thought putting a man in a diaper, calling him “Baby Jesus” and putting him at the front door would sell more Tickle-Me-Elmos…they’d do it.

    As Christians complain about stores not saying “Merry Christmas,” I can’t help but wonder how they don’t realize they are being played. Victoria’s Secret is on the “Naughty” list because they say “Happy Holidays.”

    So Christians are refusing to buy their panties and bras at Victoria’s Secret? Really? THAT’s showing ‘em!

    ReplyDelete
  9. There was a lot to read there, so I may be missing something, but it seems that one of the commentators was saying that you accept everyday occurrences with much less evidence than what's provided for the Resurrection. Say where Jupiter's Moons are, and so forth.

    But isn't that essentially putting something like why Jupiter's moons work the way they do and the Resurrection on the same level? Gravity is how the natural world works around us. It's not a violation of any sort of natural law. Yet by saying that we believe in gravity on less evidence than we have for the Resurrection ... isn't that saying that both occurrences are equally plausible?

    It just seems that if one takes that route, then the Resurrection can't be considered that "special," because the evidence is on the same playing field as things that occur naturally, such as gravity. It's also not taking into account the scope of what one is claiming in the first place. The more the claim "violates" how we understand the world to work, the more evidence is required to substantiated said claim.

    But by saying that there's less evidence in our eyes for gravity -- because we take it on the faith of scientists -- almost seems to take away the specialness of the Resurrection, because it's ordinary, boring evidence, rather than this earth-shattering event.

    ReplyDelete
  10. DagoodS,
    Yes, I'd definitely be interested in a blog post on the resurrection as you have time.

    I'm beginning to see that I'm going to have to come to terms with not knowing, not having explanations. I suppose I am so use to having them in the area of religion that I have felt Christianity couldn't really be rejected unless I found a more believable, evidence-based alternative to the ressurection story. Maybe that's a first premise that should be rejected!

    ReplyDelete
  11. DoOrDoNot wrote:

    He seemed quite eager to attribute deception and ulterior motives to you.

    Really? I don't recall doing that. Perhaps you could refresh my memory by directing me to these terrible remarks. If you are right I will apologize right in this combox, retract it and remove it from public view.

    He also loved scrutinizing your "first premises"

    Exactly. This is what socratics like myself do. I did plenty of it last night when I was with DagoodS and about seven others again for a very enjoyable and dialogue-rich evening.

    though I didn't observe him evaluating his own.

    That is, of course, DagoodS' job! I go after his; he can go after mine. I love to be challenged.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dave Armstrong,
    Goodness, I am surely not about to read through the lengthy threads on your blog to copy and paste any specific remarks! I was just giving my impression. People can go read through them and see your words for themselves if they are so inclined. You certainly don't need to worry about an apology to DagoodS unless he himself was offended. As it looks like you two have regular face-to-face interaction, you can judge that for yourself.

    I have learned a great deal from reading these on line discussions by people like DagoodS and yourself who clearly love to debate and challenge one another. I hope he will challenge your first premises (if he chooses this method) on some discussion thread. I would be interested in hearing your responses.

    ReplyDelete
  13. DoOrDoNot,

    Dave Armstrong and I do not have regular face-to-face interaction. I’ve met him twice, and only on the second occasion did we dialogue for a few hours, amongst other people. He is quite enjoyable in person, might I add.

    However, I am not interested in “challenging his first premise” for three reasons:

    1) We approach “first premises” differently. Not that one of us approaches it correctly, and the other incorrectly. Just differently. (Welcome to human diversity!) He appears to claim predispositions prohibit a person being convinced by the evidence; I peel it back a layer by claiming it is evidence that change one’s predispositions.

    Every day I attempt to change a person’s mind regarding their position. I do not, in my career, say, “Gee, Opposing Counsel. You are predisposed against my position [not exactly a surprise!], so I can’t change your mind.” Nonsense—I point out evidence strong enough to cause the person to change their mind. Same way when we try to convince others to vote for our candidate, or what restaurant to eat at, or what stocks to buy in our portfolio.

    I honestly cannot think of another situation in life where one attempts to persuade another person, and doesn’t utilize evidence. I cannot think of any other situation where one would claim predispositions are a bar to being convinced.

    I do think bias and prejudice and predispositions can inhibit one’s analysis of evidence. Both bias for and bias against. So Dave Armstrong’s point has some validity. I’m just uncertain there is anyway to change another person’s bias without using evidence.

    2) All I wanted to discuss was the Resurrection, and it would seem regardless of Dave Armstrong’s first premise—he agrees with me. So why should I argue against it? *grin*

    Although not completely clear (more on this in my third point), it would seem he believes the historical evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Resurrection happened. That it also requires a change in one’s predisposition [there’s that “first premise” thing] which requires God to intervene with grace and faith.

    In other words, without a nudge from God—one can’t be convinced by the historical evidence alone that the Resurrection happened.

    It logically follows from a solely historical approach, the Resurrection is not plausible. The same thing I am saying. Only by adding a theological element [that can only come from God] could one believe the evidence.

    On a quick side note, I personally think this is a terrible approach to take with deconverts. The last thing we wanted to hear when going through the pain of doubt is that the only way to relieve the doubt would be to have God intervene. And since the deconvert is still going through the doubt, that means God is choosing to not intervene, meaning the deconvert is screwed.

    3) I have historically had a very difficult time keeping Dave Armstrong consistent. I could point out even more monster discussions where it takes numerous comments to nail down his position, and even then he continues to waffle back and forth as convenient. Personally, I think it comes from the “Cut. Paste. Pound.” style he utilizes in internet communication—resulting in a constant search for contrary positions, but that eventually conflict his own stance.

    Like I said, when he doesn’t use this style—in person—he is far more enjoyable.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hi DoOrDoNot (sounds like a wedding or sumpin' LOL),

    Goodness, I am surely not about to read through the lengthy threads on your blog to copy and paste any specific remarks! I was just giving my impression.

    Impressions are not adequate enough when making a charge that I am accusing DagoodS with deception, etc. I take that very seriously. If someone wants to charge me with it, then the least they can do, I think, is to document it. That's why I ask, cuz it's always easy to make the serious charge in public (just a few words thrown out), and certain folks will gulp it up and believe it, wholly apart from any demonstrable evidence.

    People can go read through them and see your words for themselves if they are so inclined.

    Yes they can, but in the meantime, is it not ethical to document such a serious charge? I take the greatest pains not to accuse someone of being a liar, dishonest, immoral, etc. I do that in person as well. When I was with DagoodS and several other atheists two nights ago I stated more than once that I was not accusing anyone of such a thing; I was simply honestly disagreeing with them. I also was just as hard on Christians who immediately demonize atheists as immoral persons or act like asses and quite intolerantly, simply due to their atheism. That's absolutely wrong, too.

    You certainly don't need to worry about an apology to DagoodS unless he himself was offended.

    If I called him some kind of liar or deceptive person, I certainly would owe him an apology, as a matter of principle. But I deny that I did it! So I'm setting the record straight. Many Christians may act like that and it is a shame (so do many atheists against us, believe me). I am not one of them.

    As it looks like you two have regular face-to-face interaction, you can judge that for yourself.

    Just twice. I like the man, and he has said some nice stuff about me, too, I see. He showed kindness to me at the meeting, asking about the job I lost and how the search for a new one was going. I like most of the people in this atheist group. They are a friendly bunch and a lot of fun to gab with. I have a great time at the meetings (I've now attended four).

    I have learned a great deal from reading these on line discussions by people like DagoodS and yourself who clearly love to debate and challenge one another.

    Well that's good. Glad to hear that, since that is my purpose for dialogue: a teaching tool and often a means of learning for myself, too.

    I hope he will challenge your first premises (if he chooses this method) on some discussion thread. I would be interested in hearing your responses.

    It would be fun! He seems to want to go so far with me, though, and then gives up. I apparently exasperate him. That's fine. Obviously, I have another interpretation of all that. :-)

    I'll be critiquing more of his stuff, time-permitting. It's very time-consuming because there is a significant amount of error and illogical thinking, so one has to definitely have a large block of time available to do the hard work of demonstrating why this is the case! :-) It's always much harder to refute an error than to assert it. Takes MUCH more laborious time and effort.

    ReplyDelete
  15. However, I am not interested in “challenging his first premise” for three reasons:

    1) We approach “first premises” differently. Not that one of us approaches it correctly, and the other incorrectly. Just differently. (Welcome to human diversity!) He appears to claim predispositions prohibit a person being convinced by the evidence;


    I've explained this at least three times now; maybe four, but you don't grasp it for some reason. Let me do it again, briefly, then:

    I never said that it prohibited a person from changing their mind; only that it is a profound factor involved in the process and certainly not one that can be ignored or minimized, as you have been doing, in your rush to extol the glories of evidence (something I never disputed in the least, being an apologist by trade, with a blog called Biblical Evidence for Catholicism).

    I peel it back a layer by claiming it is evidence that change one’s predispositions.

    I say it is both: it's symbiotic. But obviously I place a higher relative emphasis on first premises than you do.

    Every day I attempt to change a person’s mind regarding their position. I do not, in my career, say, “Gee, Opposing Counsel. You are predisposed against my position [not exactly a surprise!], so I can’t change your mind.” Nonsense—I point out evidence strong enough to cause the person to change their mind. Same way when we try to convince others to vote for our candidate, or what restaurant to eat at, or what stocks to buy in our portfolio.

    Of course. Since I don't dispute this at all, it is irrelevant to this particular dispute on the relative importance of presuppositions and predispositions.

    Moreover, legal disputes about wordings in contracts or what acts occurred or didn't occur and how they relate to the law are quite different from disputes about abstract ideas and Christian theology.

    I honestly cannot think of another situation in life where one attempts to persuade another person, and doesn’t utilize evidence. I cannot think of any other situation where one would claim predispositions are a bar to being convinced.

    Then you have quite a bit of pondering to do. Go read some Socrates. You can't lose by doing that.

    ReplyDelete
  16. [cont.]

    I do think bias and prejudice and predispositions can inhibit one’s analysis of evidence. Both bias for and bias against. So Dave Armstrong’s point has some validity. I’m just uncertain there is anyway to change another person’s bias without using evidence.

    So you acknowledge something in what I am saying, and I don't disagree with your point at all, as far as it goes, so we're not nearly as far apart as you suppose.

    2) All I wanted to discuss was the Resurrection, and it would seem regardless of Dave Armstrong’s first premise—he agrees with me. So why should I argue against it? *grin*

    Not sure what this means . . .

    Although not completely clear (more on this in my third point), it would seem he believes the historical evidence is not sufficient to demonstrate the Resurrection happened. That it also requires a change in one’s predisposition [there’s that “first premise” thing] which requires God to intervene with grace and faith.

    Christians believe that grace and faith are required to believe in any Christian doctrine (or miracle), and they come ultimately from God. That is Christianity 0101 and we can't pretend that this is not the case simply because we are talking to atheists who reject those categories. We are what we are, and Christian worldview is what it is. I'd be a lousy apologist if I told you otherwise, because it wouldn't be honest.

    In other words, without a nudge from God—one can’t be convinced by the historical evidence alone that the Resurrection happened.

    Since you have to believe in God, it seems to me, to believe in a miracle in the first place, that would appear to me to be the inexorable conclusion. If you deny the existence of the God Who performs the miracle, then how in the world can you believe in the miracle? It's a matter of simple logic. All of these things stand or fall together. If you believe in God, you believe in such things as faith (in the very act of believing) and grace (the power to believe). I think the historical evidence is sufficient if there is no bias that precludes it from the outset from being compelling. But in many cases (not all) such a bias is present, and it is decisive against believing it.

    It logically follows from a solely historical approach, the Resurrection is not plausible.

    I'm not saying that. I am saying that there are always factors beyond abstract, coldly logical, facts-based historiography. As you know, there are even many theories of how to do historiography, so the philosophical realm always enters the equation (just as it necessarily does in physical science).

    The same thing I am saying. Only by adding a theological element [that can only come from God] could one believe the evidence.

    You are putting a slant on it that I do not place there. You're molding my view into a caricature of what it actually is. And let me hasten to add that I don't think you are being deliberately dishonest. You just don't grasp fully what I am saying and so you "repeat" my view back incorrectly and inaccurately. I've already explained it several times, including in person, but you don't yet comprehend what I am saying. And so one wonders after a while why that is.

    ReplyDelete
  17. [cont.]

    On a quick side note, I personally think this is a terrible approach to take with deconverts. The last thing we wanted to hear when going through the pain of doubt is that the only way to relieve the doubt would be to have God intervene.

    I didn't say it was the only way; I simply said that in Christian thinking, one can never dismiss faith and grace from the overall picture. I think atheism requires far more faith than Christianity does (faith defined broadly as belief in axioms that one cannot absolutely prove).

    And since the deconvert is still going through the doubt, that means God is choosing to not intervene, meaning the deconvert is screwed.

    He is screwed if he chooses to reject what he knows to be true. The problem with most atheists is that they don't believe what has been shown to be true. They truly, honestly do not accept the belief, and I say that it is usually because of false and illogical thinking they have picked up somewhere along the line. We are what we eat.

    3) I have historically had a very difficult time keeping Dave Armstrong consistent. I could point out even more monster discussions where it takes numerous comments to nail down his position, and even then he continues to waffle back and forth as convenient.

    Right. All this shows me is that again you did not grasp the nuances and subtleties of my position. It's all quite consistent. You may disagree, but it is consistent (just as I say atheism is usually profoundly consistent if one accepts its first premises, but I reject those).

    Personally, I think it comes from the “Cut. Paste. Pound.” style he utilizes in internet communication—resulting in a constant search for contrary positions, but that eventually conflict his own stance.

    You're entitled to your theory as to my alleged profound inconsistencies. It's a ridiculous, desperate one, but I do greatly enjoy it for its entertainment value.

    Like I said, when he doesn’t use this style—in person—he is far more enjoyable.

    With nine talkative people in a group I never have time to pursue any one line of reasoning that I would set forth to a 50th of the depth that I can do in writing. That is why writing is the best medium to do that. In person, socratic dialogue only works if there are two people and both are willing to do it and to stay on a very particular, focused topic. That rarely happens in a group of three, four or more, so conversation proceeds upon very different lines. I could only make a few points here and there and hope that they stick and have any effect at all. I still enjoy it, but it is far less efficient or constructive in arriving at truth than written dialogue.

    Socrates wasn't very popular, as we know, and was eventually killed because he got people so angry with his constant questioning. People don't like it. So I don't expect people to like it much when I follow his method. Folks simply don't like having their views critiqued.

    [I'll also be cross-posting this and any further exchanges following it on my blog]

    ReplyDelete
  18. The paragraph beginning, "And since the deconvert" should have been italicized as one of Dagoods' remarks.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Dave Armstrong.

    Is the historical evidence sufficient to conclude Jesus physically resurrected from the dead?

    ReplyDelete
  20. We've been through this three times now (including a careful explanation in person two nights ago). Go read what I said again. This is not some game where you get me to incriminate myself "on the stand" by an inadequate short answer. It's a serious philosophical issue. I've explained it over and over, and your asking the simple question yet again, shows me that you continue to not comprehend what my position is. But I have already stated it repeatedly. So just go read it!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks, Dave Armstrong,

    According to your comments in the monster thread , the historical record is not sufficient—one must also have a certain will, faith and grace.

    So you agree with my second point—the historical evidence by itself is not sufficient. Now, I do believe it logically follows that a supernatural explanation is therefore not plausible, based upon the historical evidence itself, and here you disagree.

    Can you explain how the historical record is not sufficient to conclude the Resurrection, but it is more plausible to conclude a Resurrection? I would think “more plausible” is a higher or equal standard to “sufficient.”

    ReplyDelete
  22. I have written about all this "evidence" stuff at length. It is too complex to summarize briefly. You can put it in whatever box you like.

    I haven't entered into a discussion of the evidence itself; only factors that influence how one interprets that evidence.

    We've been talking about two different things all along, and neither wants to talk about what the other wants to discuss.

    Why one believes in the Resurrection would be for a great variety of cumulative reasons (just as I would say about Christianity in general or theism itself).

    As I have said before and stated to Jon on my blog a few minutes ago, if you guys read the best Christian defenders of the Resurrection from an apologetic standpoint, you will be unpersuaded by me, because they are the experts and I haven't delved that deeply into Resurrection apologetics myself. I always recommend that folks go read the best arguments they can find if they are really interested in something.

    At least give it your best shot by reading the best the opponent has to offer. And on this topic, that certainly isn't me. I have other areas I specialize in and emphasize.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Dave Armstrong,

    If you haven’t extensively studied the Resurrection (which is fine), and you don’t know the evidences as well as I—how can you assert whether the evidence you don’t know is sufficient or plausible? That seems…strange…to me.

    Its not that I don’t want to talk about predispositions, as much as I see them as insignificant. My method assumes predispositions exist, and works to derive objectivity in the face of such predispositions. Saying someone has a predisposition is about as interesting or informative to me as saying we are using the English Language. True…but so what?

    Let me give an analogy. Say someone claims: “Nicodemus wrote the Epistle of Hebrews.” (I am completely making this up; I do not know of any such claim.) I freely confess I would initially approach such a claim with skepticism. With a…dare I say…predisposition against such a proposition.

    However, I grant arguments charity. Rather than worry about who is predisposed to what, I will read the person’s support, evidence and argument. Presumably they are predisposed toward their own allegation Nicodemus was the author. I will then read arguments from alternative theories. People who presumably are predisposed against Nicodemus being the author. And from those arguments assess what a neutral party would determine.

    Perhaps I will change my mind. Or become less certain of my position while maintaining it.

    Every single claim (especially when it comes to theology) has people predisposed for/against it. I don’t care; I assume it. My question is whose arguments are better? If I ignore an argument simply because it is made by a person predisposed toward the position they were arguing—I would have to ignore almost every argument made!

    That Jesus is a myth—there are people predisposed for/against. *shrug* I am interested in the arguments, the evidence, the support.

    That Matthew wrote the Gospel. That Luke, John and Mark wrote their respective gospels. There are people predisposed for/against. *shrug* I am interested in the arguments, the evidence, the support.

    At one time, I maintained Matthew wrote the gospel. I was predisposed toward it. I read alternative theories. Promulgated by people predisposed he did not. I knew they were predisposed against Matthean authorship—it was obvious within their argument. To point it out would be dull and boring. Eventually I became convinced he did not, because within my method upon presentation of the evidence and arguments by those both predisposed for and against—I assessed a neutral party would favor the arguments against.

    Notice the authorship of Matthew has nothing to do with whether there is a God. Saying another person wrote Matthew did not give me license to become an orgy-organizer. All those reasons people claim for why I deconverted wouldn’t apply. It was simply a claim I found more support in a position I was initially predisposed against.

    To some extent you are accurate that predispositions influence how one interprets evidence. I am predisposed, both by personality and profession, to weigh arguments for/against as to how neutrals would determine, even though--especially though--the proponents are predisposed toward their position. I am predisposed to look for truth rather than comfort. To face reality rather than desirability. To accept the consequences of an unwanted inevitable result.

    I get the feeling many Christian apologists don’t want to hear that. They want to assign some moral motivation, or retribution for a perceived wounding. Or they assume I am employing some intellectual snobbery.

    I’m not; I am just…me.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Thanks for your thoughts. YAWN. We both get bored with certain arguments and lines of thought. We have that in common!

    Eventually we'll hit upon a topic we both want to talk about, and it might even be fun! :-)

    ReplyDelete