YM's August 2010 Screwballs Derail

[YourMaster]

I've finishes writing up on the cosmological argument and almost finished writing up on the teleological argument. No atheist response to these arguments even begins to make coherent logical sense whatsoever.

That is true of course -- but when the ringing noise in your head stops everything changes. Then we magically discover absence of evidence is not valid evidence, and apologists don't know how to use induction or Bayesian statistics. They don't even realize mathematical techniques like Zeno's paradox only say an infinite series in finite spacetime is counter-intuitve, but we lack any basis for statements regarding an infinite series in infinite spacetime (because the intuition of finite beings cannot know anything about infinite spacetime, at least not without serious advancements in science that may or may not ever happen, much less the fallacy of imagining our intuition applies broadly in the quantum world). After all these centuries apologists still can't dent the logic of David Hume (but not for lack for trying).

[Rational Gaze]

That is true of course.

That's the first step, admitting the problem.

But when the ringing noise in your head stops everything changes.

It means the tinnitus I got from listening to your incessant whining has died down.

blah blah blah I don't understand Zeno's Paradoxes blah blah blah I don't understand mathematics or Baye's Theorem

Uh oh, looks as if baby's having a temper tantrum.

[YourMaster]

The only interpretation of this statement I can think of is that you are implying Tassman is trying to get YourMaster into a three-way relationship with him and Richard Carrier.

You can hide it all you want ... but stop projecting (and come out of that closet).

[JB]

That is true of course -- but when the ringing noise in your head stops everything changes. Then we magically discover absence of evidence is not valid evidence, and apologists don't know how to use induction or Bayesian statistics. They don't even realize mathematical techniques like Zeno's paradox only say an infinite series in finite spacetime is counter-intuitve, but we lack any basis for statements regarding an infinite series in infinite spacetime (because the intuition of finite beings cannot know anything about infinite spacetime, at least not without serious advancements in science that may or may not ever happen, much less the fallacy of imagining our intuition applies broadly in the quantum world). After all these centuries apologists still can't dent the logic of David Hume (but not for lack for trying).

I'm curious, YM: what books by "apologists" have you read? In particular, of course, the ones that seek to interact with Humean positions and arguments, but I'm interested to know precisely what reading you've done on the 'other side'.

[MWM958]

I'm curious, YM: what books by "apologists" have you read? In particular, of course, the ones that seek to interact with Humean positions and arguments, but I'm interested to know precisely what reading you've done on the 'other side'.

I think the most "scholarly" thing he has read has been Ray Comfort and Josh McDowell

[YourMaster]

I'm curious, YM: what books by "apologists" have you read? In particular, of course, the ones that seek to interact with Humean positions and arguments, but I'm interested to know precisely what reading you've done on the 'other side'.

I've read some classical stuff (C.S. Lewis), summaries of older philosophical arguments in undergrad e.g. Summa Theologica (Aquinas), a little Calvin, Augustine, etc. And discussing these topics has pushed me to study at least the outline of theories presented by modern apologists (e.g. Plantinga, Craig, etc.). I'm pretty convinced on the metaphysical side.

Regarding biblical claims, correct me if I'm wrong but the bible claims stuff like all the dead resurrected from their tombs and walked the streets of Jerusalem (a major city occupied by the Romans) right after Jesus was crucified. That's a pretty huge claim isn't it? That claim like all the bibles' extraordinary claims have the same thing in common -- not a drop of substantiating evidence. It took historians some time before they believed many of the claims surrounding Alexander the Great. Only after a healthy amount of substantiating evidence (e.g. archeology) was discovered did they begin to piece together a real history. I think the New Testament also claims hundreds of witnesses to its core claims (e.g. the resurrection, miracles of Jesus, etc.). I think with regard to some of Jesus' miracles there were supposedly thousands of witnesses (e.g. Sermon on the Mount and magically feeding thousands of onlookers). Yet there's not a drop of evidence outside the bible itself for any of it. The way I've seen apologists deal with this problem is they supplant biblical history with metaphysical arguments. Well, if the metaphysical arguments are from ignorance, and the biblical claims have no substantiating evidence, it's a giant circle.

The rebuttal that I've seen (here on Tweb) is usually that people were mostly illiterate in that culture so they didn't write down stuff. Sure, maybe, but we're talking about thousands of people, and their family, friends, their friends friends, etc. By the time it's said and done we're up to tens of thousands of people; yet nothing. I guess you have to also assume none of the scribes, Roman soldiers and officials, etc. got wind of these events (I'm sure there's explanations for this, but still, with every stretch the probability gets lower and lower, until it seems absurd to believe something from a reasonable standpoint).

I think some of the claims do enjoy at least a little support (enough to say it's very possible they happened, like there was a Christian cult early on in Jerusalem and Jesus may have been a real guy who was executed by Roman authorities at the behest of local religious leaders, and I think there's also a decent body of evidence regarding Paul), but that can't be said about any of the fantastic claims can it? I'm stuck believing a small group of men who I'd say (assuming some of these events did happen) had a lot of motivation to drum up a story to save their own credibility (or at least this seems like a very plausible explanation). I certainly can't prove anything with regard to the motivations of men who lived and died 2,000 years ago; but still. The saying goes extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Whether you buy that or not, I think it's fair to at least expect a normal amount of proof (or at least something more than no proof).

[Tophet]

Regarding biblical claims, correct me if I'm wrong but the bible claims stuff like all the dead resurrected from their tombs and walked the streets of Jerusalem (a major city occupied by the Romans) right after Jesus was crucified. That's a pretty huge claim isn't it?.

Yes it is a fantastic claim and therefore easy to debunk by the people alive at the time--if it were false. What contemporary report do you have that Matthew's testimony was false?

[YourMaster]

Yes it is a fantastic claim and therefore easy to debunk by the people alive at the time--if it were false. What contemporary report do you have that Matthew's testimony was false?

Wasn't the new testament authored at least several decades after the fact (maybe over a century later) and hundreds of miles away in an entirely different society? Moreover, if all the dead really resurrected from their graves and walked around Jerusalem then why didn't more Jews become Christians?

In other words when someone writes a story about events they claim occurred, after all the potential witnesses are either dead or hundreds of miles away (in an ancient world that didn't have neat stuff like the internet or telephones or any means of electronic communication), the argument you're trying to use doesn't seem very reasonable. Even given best case scenario e.g. assuming the NT was written several decades after the death of Jesus, and some people who may have witnessed some of these events were alive, there's no solid evidence to suggest these individuals ever came in contact with these stories. As far as I know we lack information regarding the state of Christianity in pre-diaspora Roman Palestine (except for Josephus' account); and it took Christianity a bit of time to get up and running.

I haven't seen any reason to believe the bible can be validly presumed to be self-authenticating. If anything science continues to debunk more and more of the bible (and you guys keep moving the bulls eye in response), so the track record doesn't seem very good for Abrahamic religion (at least not in terms of proving its claims).

Like I said maybe there's some facts I don't know that are worthy of consideration? If so I'm certainly willing to consider them. The only thing that seems like it might be compelling in this regard would be proof that after the diaspora (roughly 40 years after the death of Jesus) Jews who probably would have witnessed these events came into contact with the story as it currently exists (or at least the controversial elements of the story e.g. the dead resurrecting from their tombs and walking around Jerusalem), and never challenged it. I don't think there's proof of this, but maybe I'm wrong? Conversely, I think there is evidence to suggest as Jews left Roman Palestine, entered Greek society in larger numbers, and as Christianity grew ... Jews challenged the claims made by Christians (and were often persecuted because of this). Ironically I think evidence for this can be found in early Christian apologetic sources. That doesn't disprove anything (because we probably don't know enough about the basis of Jewish objection to Christianity at that time and the chronology seems pretty fuzzy). Nonetheless, it appears to create problems for historicity arguments.

[Rational Gaze]

Moreover, if all the dead really resurrected from their graves and took a stroll around Jerusalem then why didn't more Jews become Christians?

Why don't more people believe that the theory of Evolution is true?

[Challenger Grim]

Why don't more people believe that the theory of Evolution is true?

Don't forget: 3000+ Jews DID become Christians, most of that in just 1 day.

What does YM think caused those 3k to convert?

[Rational Gaze]

Essentially, his argument boils down to:
x is a miraculous event
if x were true, more people would have believed x
therefore, x did not occur

Bandwagon fallacy coupled with the argument from personal incredulity.

[YourMaster]

Don't forget: 3000+ Jews DID become Christians, most of that in just 1 day.

What does YM think caused those 3k to convert?

When are you referring to? Book of Acts (at least according to Google ). Again, circular (unless you think the bible can be self-authenticating).

[YourMaster]

Essentially, his argument boils down to:
x is a miraculous event
if x were true, more people would have believed x
therefore, x did not occur

Bandwagon fallacy coupled with the argument from personal incredulity.

That would be valid if I were the one making the affirmative claim. I'm simply saying there's no evidence. While absence of evidence isn't evidence, absence of evidence IS absence of evidence. Moreover, what little evidence does exist outside the bible (of Jewish sentiment toward the Christian religion, in its early days) suggests they generally objected to it (although there are some Christian sects in places like Indian that trace their heritage to diaspora Jews, and there is genetic evidence of least relation to the Jewish archetype, it turns out they're actually decendents of Cochin Jews who arrived in India centuries before Christianity).

[JB]

I've read some classical stuff (C.S. Lewis), summaries of older philosophical arguments in undergrad e.g. Summa Theologica (Aquinas), a little Calvin, Augustine, etc. And discussing these topics has pushed me to study at least the outline of theories presented by modern apologists (e.g. Plantinga, Craig, etc.). I'm pretty convinced on the metaphysical side.

Thanks, YM. Maybe sometime we'll have a chance to chat about some of the metaphysical/philosophical issues involved (and perhaps the biblical/historical ones as well). In the meantime, if I might recommend a book I think you'd enjoy: In Defense of Natural Theology: A Post-Humean Assessment, edited by James F. Sennett and Douglas Groothuis. In pursuing a positive case for the existence of God, the contributors all focus heavily on interacting with both Hume and his modern-day followers. Since I know you've gone on record as expressing a strong conviction in the enduring strength of Hume's case against natural theology, the credibility of miracle claims, etc., you might enjoy a chance to see how some modern philosophers engage the issues. (Critiques of Hume's stance on miracle claims have been treated enough elsewhere - e.g., in John Earman's Hume's Abject Failure, among so many others - that I'm glad this work focuses on other issues instead.)

In Defense of Natural Theology should be fairly easy to get, at least via InterLibrary Loan, and I've little doubt that you could get through it in a few weeks at most (perhaps considerably less), if you were to feel so inclined.

[YourMaster]

Thanks. Isn't Earman the one who uses Bayesian statistics to deal with Hume?