tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post4608879522235604196..comments2024-01-25T00:50:10.679-05:00Comments on Thoughts from a Sandwich: Women at Empty TombDagoodShttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-15694620683672007872010-03-01T11:40:30.925-05:002010-03-01T11:40:30.925-05:00I don't want to fall into the fallacy of ignor...I don't want to fall into the fallacy of ignoring cultural differences, however, part of my reason for mentioning people whose pre-conversion life gets worse each time they give their testimony is to illustrate that stories evolve according to the responses the elicit. The reason the Christian makes himself worse each time is because the story works better that way. I can see why Peter might not have told the story on himself, but I do think the criteria of embarrassment is invoked much too freely by apologists.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-35282005967771152482010-03-01T11:24:03.237-05:002010-03-01T11:24:03.237-05:00Yes, that would be my first statement.
But deba...Yes, that would be my first statement. <br /><br />But debates are different than courtrooms. In trials, we have hours and days to present our evidence, to a neutral recipient. In a debate one only has minutes and to an arguably hostile audience. In a trial, the evidence has already been presented, whereas in debate the people may not know the evidence yet.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-43642319663496083852010-02-27T21:48:17.649-05:002010-02-27T21:48:17.649-05:00Bwahaha…where have you been, friend Barefoot Bum?
...<i>Bwahaha…where have you been, friend Barefoot Bum?</i><br /><br />Hanging out with commies. :-p<br /><br /><i>It seems every debate I hear anymore around the existence of God (or the Christian God) brings up Habermas’ “minimal facts.”</i><br /><br />I remember Habermas. His head is indeed so far up his ass he needs a glass navel to watch television.<br /><br /><i>At the moment I am concentrating on figuring out how to give both answers—both those that would satisfy a hostile audience in a time-limited debate and those in the internet who like a more full-bodied explanation.</i><br /><br />How would you give your opening as the defense if the prosecution tried such a simple trick? Seems to me the first question out of your mouth would be, "Why doesn't the prosecution want you to hear <i>all</i> the evidence?"Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-53292045565476812412010-02-27T19:43:52.088-05:002010-02-27T19:43:52.088-05:00Bwahaha…where have you been, friend Barefoot Bum?
...Bwahaha…where have you been, friend Barefoot Bum?<br /><br />It seems every debate I hear anymore around the existence of God (or the Christian God) brings up Habermas’ “minimal facts.” The Christian claims a majority of historians (what that “majority” is depends on the debater) agree on these facts:<br /><br />1) Jesus died and was buried.<br />2) The tomb was empty after the third day<br />3) The Disciples believed they saw a resurrected Jesus.<br /><br />(Some do more “minimal facts”) The debater then tries to take away any of the opposing party’s rabbit trails by saying they will “prove” Jesus using only these minimal facts. Simple trick really called “Defining the argument.” <br /><br />Then the Christian says, “The simplest solution is that Jesus was resurrected and my opponent must come up with a solution that is more plausible and answers these facts.” Of course by the time you delve into each one, or develop a full explanation of how the New Testament came to be you have:<br /><br />1) Wasted all your time; and<br />2) Lost your audience (most were against you anyway.)<br /><br />I’m realizing we need to approach some of these answers in two <i>very different</i> manners. Here, in blogdom or on a forum, we can parse it out, explain the difficulties, and create a long form answer. I am deliberately approaching this from two different aspects: 1) how to respond in a debate and 2) how to give a full, reasoned out answer.<br /><br />I used the laser beam example because it IS amusing (make the audience laugh in a debate) and get them to realize why just cherry-picking a few facts is an insufficient method.<br /><br />At the moment I am concentrating on figuring out how to give both answers—both those that would satisfy a hostile audience in a time-limited debate and those in the internet who like a more full-bodied explanation.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-17876769972820741862010-02-27T16:35:03.281-05:002010-02-27T16:35:03.281-05:00The maxim is "false in part, false in whole,&...The maxim is "false in part, false in whole," not "<i>true</i> in part, <i>true</i> in whole," <i>n'est pas</i>?<br /><br /><i>This is EXACTLY why I dislike the “minimal facts” form of debate.</i><br /><br />Is this an actual form of debate? Or, rather, are there people whose heads are so far up their asses that they would call this a form of debate?<br /><br />Your example is amusing, but not strong enough. A better example is:<br /><br />(1) My car didn't start this morning.<br />(2) The most likely explanation (based on history) is that the battery is dead.<br /><br />(1) is stipulated and (2) is actually true. A "minimal fact" solution, however, would be to <i>eliminate</i> all solutions other than a dead battery, even though there's additional evidence, such as the engine turning over strongly when the starter is applied, that would make a dead battery the <i>least</i> likely solution.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-80098099998524668402010-02-27T15:15:23.728-05:002010-02-27T15:15:23.728-05:00Jon,
I date Mark pre-Marcion…so I don’t think it ...Jon,<br /><br />I date Mark pre-Marcion…so I don’t think it was Marcion. Of course, as you know, dating the gospels can be a tricky business.<br /><br />My favorite example of “embarrassment as criteria” is the account in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas where a child inadvertently bumps Jesus, so Jesus kills him. The parents of the dead boy complain to Joseph…so Jesus blinds them! Not very favorable about Jesus, right? Embarrassing to portray the person who talked of loving others to do such things. That must make these REALLY true!DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-85302806222976152872010-02-27T15:15:06.631-05:002010-02-27T15:15:06.631-05:00Lorena,
Thank you for your comment. I forget, af...Lorena,<br /><br />Thank you for your comment. I forget, after delving in this so long, how to phrase it better. I need to flesh out…better…the basis of these claims.DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-27814007007824700192010-02-27T15:14:53.504-05:002010-02-27T15:14:53.504-05:00The Barefoot Bum
This is EXACTLY why I dislike th...The Barefoot Bum<br /><br />This is EXACTLY why I dislike the “minimal facts” form of debate. You accurately point out that the solution for a few facts may not conform to more discovered facts. I always imagined answering this in a debate:<br /><br />“Why only look at ‘minimal facts’? Don’t we want to look at ALL the facts? What if something in the other facts eliminates our solution under the minimal facts? For example, what if we only look at two minimal facts:<br /><br />1) The Government has lasers; and<br />2) My car didn’t start this morning.<br /><br />“A minimal fact solution would be that the government lasered my car! Obviously we look to more facts, like other reasons the car didn’t start and the government’s complete lack of interest in my car, which eliminates this solution.”DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-15390237945395261802010-02-27T15:14:33.284-05:002010-02-27T15:14:33.284-05:00Vinny,
I am familiar with those testimonies that ...Vinny,<br /><br />I am familiar with those testimonies that become worse over the years. However, I would not necessarily claim that was happening in First Century Judea. I wouldn’t want to commit the same error of saying, “Since we do this—they would do it too.”<br /><br />It was a different culture, and I am persuaded by Malina it was an Honor/Shame society. Peter would not dishonor himself with these stories. Perhaps a more generalized (Like Paul’s “I was chief of sinners” or “I persecuted Christians”) but not with such specificity.<br /><br />It is (in my opinion) indicative of myth to finish the gospel, “And they never told anyone.” Of course, believers would claim this silence was only for a short period of time. Hours for inerrantists, a few years for non-inerrantists. And clearly even the author didn’t intend the readers to think the women <i>never</i> told anyone…otherwise even the author wouldn’t know!<br /><br />The idea being, “You never knew the story…until now.”DagoodShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04557451438888314932noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-41945498477934606642010-02-27T10:40:33.851-05:002010-02-27T10:40:33.851-05:00With regards to your succinct reply to Craig, the ...With regards to your succinct reply to Craig, the fact that the Centurion recognized Jesus and that's embarrassing is just more proof that that historical detail is correct. Right?<br /><br />Seriously, this is really fascinating stuff. I'd heard Carrier talk about role reversal related things but without the many details you offer here it didn't seem too persuasive.<br /><br />What are the chances that with this poor portrayal of the disciples Mark is really Marcion?Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10530680372103907969noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-76070330666410188652010-02-25T19:39:52.919-05:002010-02-25T19:39:52.919-05:00This one is bookmarkable. Sound argument. It helps...This one is bookmarkable. Sound argument. It helps to have read Misquoting Jesus for grasping your ideas.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-13772678028894410062010-02-24T06:03:06.504-05:002010-02-24T06:03:06.504-05:00This examination also reveals a deep character of ...This examination also reveals a deep character of evidentiary arguments, showing that these arguments are not fundamentally deductive.<br /><br />Any finite amount of evidence allows for an infinite number of "stories" to explain or account for that evidence. Each piece of evidence changes the "weight" of these stories, making each story more or less "unlikely" (i.e. improbable and/or implausible). And we find time and again that if we put together enough evidence we get one "bright spot" of likelihood, with all alternative explanations fading into unlikelihood.<br /><br />A common misuse of evidentiary arguments is the treatment of evidence in isolation. But we must treat evidence more holistically. Taken apart, a particular story might be an relatively unlikely explanation for two or three pieces of evidence, but that same story might well be the <i>most</i> likely explanation for both or all three pieces of evidence taken together.<br /><br />It's just not the same as deductivism. When I'm deriving theorems of geometry, for example, I might take a subset of the axioms to prove that the opposite angles of an isosceles triangle are equal, and another subset to prove its area is equal to the length of the base times half the height. It doesn't <i>matter</i> here that I'm taking some of the axioms of geometry in isolation: any theorem derived from any subset of the axioms is necessarily valid by definition.<br /><br />Thus Craig commits a fallacy of evidentiary reductionism (among his many other fallacies; it's clear from the body of his work that he's either entirely incompetent at logical reasoning or that he's pretty much intentionally lying almost all the time):<br /><br />1. Take one particular item of evidence (the women discovering the empty tomb)<br />2. Note (more or less correctly) that this piece of evidence in isolation makes one particular category of story (intentional lying) less plausible.<br />3?. Apply Occam's Razor and say that since one particular kind story is less plausible, it can therefore be ruled out.<br />4. Consider only those kinds of stories not ruled out in evaluating additional evidence.<br /><br />The fallacy is at step 3: Even if Craig were not committing the more prosaic logical fallacy of the excluded middle, one kind of story (intentional lying) is less plausible only relative to one particular piece of evidence. Furthermore, less plausible just means less plausible; it does not mean definitely false.<br /><br />We can apply Occam's Razor only at the <i>end</i>: After we have come up with the candidate stories that explain or account for all the evidence, we <i>then</i> apply Occam's Razor and <i>then</i> pick the most plausible story. Furthermore, even then we do not conclude that the less plausible stories are definitely false, we conclude only that they are in fact less plausible, and we have at present no additional evidentiary criteria to make distinctions. When and if new evidence arrives, the less plausible stories are back on the table.<br /><br />(Of course, Craig makes a far larger and more obvious error: If the women found Jesus and didn't tell anyone, "And they said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid," how did Mark ever find out, much less find out many decades later? Mark must be making <i>something</i> up here.)Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-63773242669358672922010-02-23T23:32:53.123-05:002010-02-23T23:32:53.123-05:00Three observations (with which you are probably al...Three observations (with which you are probably already familiar):<br /><br />(1) Back when I used to practice law for a living, I worked with one of the sneakiest bastards you could ever hope to meet. He explained to me that the worst thing to do when preparing a client to testify is to have him deny everything the other side says. That makes him look like a liar. You want your client to agree with 95% of what the other side says and only challenge a couple of specific points that can turn the case. For example, have him admit that he signed the contract but have him claim that he had a discussion with the other side in which they agreed on a particular meaning of an ambiguous clause.<br /><br />In short, we can't eliminate the possibility that an embarrassing detail might simply be included to enhances the credibility of the story.<br /><br />(2) If Mark invented the empty tomb story, his readers would have been curious about why they had never heard the story before. By writing the story the way he did, Mark created an out for himself, <i>i.e.,</i> "You never heard we didn't know about this for a long time because those silly unreliable women ran off without telling anyone."<br /><br />I realize that this is simplistic, and I don't think that it is nearly as likely as the reasons you have suggested, but I think it illustrates the fact that facially embarrassing facts can serve important purposes that might justify their invention.<br /><br />(3) I have heard many Christians give their testimony over the years, some repeatedly. In the cases where I have heard the same person's testimony more than once, there seems to be a marked tendency to make their pre-conversion life seem more desperate and depraved each time they tell their story. In cases where I knew the person prior to their conversion, they make their former life sound much worse than I remember it being and their transformation more spectacular than I have observed.<br /><br />In other words, any embarrassing story about the disciples prior to the resurrection isn't necessarily embarrassing if it serves to illustrate the glory of their transformation.Vinnyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08955726889682177434noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20896717.post-83443324218295839472010-02-23T14:11:48.706-05:002010-02-23T14:11:48.706-05:00Very nice work, Dagood. When the fascists come to ...Very nice work, Dagood. When the fascists come to get me, I want you as my lawyer.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.com