A Non-Supernatural Resurrection?

[Xru]

Scientific criticisms are a body of analysis of scientific methodologies, philosophies, and possible negative roles media and politics play in scientific research. Criticism of science is distinct from the academic positions of Antiscience or Anti-Intellectualism which seek to reject entirely the scientific method. Rather, criticism is made to address and refine problems within the sciences in order to improve science as a whole, and its role in society.

*

Exactly my setiments.

Historian Jacques Barzun termed science "a faith as fanatical as any in history" and warned against the use of scientific thought to suppress considerations of meaning as integral to human existence.[1]

Philosopher of science Paul K Feyerabend advanced the idea of epistemological anarchism, which holds that there are no useful and exception-free methodological rules governing the progress of science or the growth of knowledge, and that the idea that science can or should operate according to universal and fixed rules is unrealistic, pernicious and detrimental to science itself.[2]

Feyerabend also criticized science for not having evidence for its own philosophical precepts.

Professor of Sociology Stanley Aronowitz scrutinizes science for operating with the presumption that the only acceptable criticisms of science are those conducted within the methodological framework that science has set up for itself.

Philosopher of Religion Alan Watts criticized science for operating under a materialist model of the world that he posited is simply a modified version of the Abrahamic worldview, that "the universe is constructed and maintained by a Lawmaker" (commonly identified as God or the Logos).

David Parkin compared the epistemological stance of science to that of divination.[8] He suggested that, to the degree that divination is an epistemologically specific means of gaining insight into a given question, science itself can be considered a form of divination that is framed from a Western view of the nature (and thus possible applications) of knowledge.

Polymath and Episkopos of Discordianism Robert Anton Wilson stresses that the instruments used in scientific investigation produce meaningful answers relevant only to the instrument, and that there is no objective vantage point from which science could verify its findings since all findings are relative to begin with.[9]

The field of ecophenomenology disregards science and technology on ontological grounds, and calls for an openness to the "essential elements of human experience with the world".[10] It wants "to enter... into the sensorial present",[11] and to "recover the moral sense of our humanity" by "recover[ing] first the moral sense of nature".[12]

*All quotes are from Wikipedia "Criticism of Science."

Further reading

Nicholas Rescher, The Limits of Science, Pittsburgh: the University of Pittsburgh Press; 2nd edition, 1999
Marsonet, Michele. Science, Reality, and Language, New York: SUNY, 1995
Feyerabend, Paul. Science in a Free Society, Verso
Conway, Erik (2011). Merchants of doubt : how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke. [S.l.]: Bloomsbury. ISBN 9781408824665.

Once again I strongly suggest going to the Wiki page and reading the page in its entirety. There is an extensive list of citations from well known and respected men.

Once again let me say that I strongly support good science and I strongly suggest that all interested understand the context and limitation to science and the knowledge gain therefrom.

[Mountain Man]

And I have little time for people who make blanket assertions and incoherent arguements blindsided by monumental cognitive dissonance and basic reading comprehension issues. Your "opinion" and baseless assertion of extrapolation noted it simply isn't suported by reality then or now , as is comparing our ancestors knowledge to todays. The prevelence of superstition even today is a good arguement for skepticism and not accepting claims on face value. A large number do benefit from the discoveries of science today on a global level and scale but by means not available in the past and still we see huge numbers living under circumstances little changed since bibliical times. Very true I don't accept your opinion and assertions on face value. As to my posting style I find it easier to address points as I feel there made and needed your distaste is irrelevent and I've yet to see you make a coherent arguement or show any evidence.

Your indignation is rather precious in light of how you've missed the actual point of my argument. I can't see how its valid to dismiss a specific body of evidence on the vague grounds that the culture it came from was generally superstitious. So what? It's possible for someone to be superstitious and still be correct about something they've personally seen with their own eyes. You need to actually deal with the evidence instead of looking for bigoted excuses to ignore it.

Concerning the ease of access to information, it's not as though the ancients -- or human culture in general until the invention of mass communication within the last hundred years -- was incapable of spreading and sharing information over distances. It was less efficient, sure, but not impossible. The ancients may have had their superstitions, just as we do today, but they still possessed a wealth of knowledge and a great degree of intelligence and sophistication.

Oh, and don't pretend you don't know what evidence I'm referring to. You may be stupid, but you're not that stupid.

[Jaecp]

i read over it and asked you to pick a couple to talk about because i dont have much free time

Why did you choose so many? A couple is two

*

Exactly my setiments.

















*All quotes are from Wikipedia "Criticism of Science."




Once again I strongly suggest going to the Wiki page and reading the page in its entirety. There is an extensive list of citations from well known and respected men.

Once again let me say that I strongly support good science and I strongly suggest that all interested understand the context and limitation to science and the knowledge gain therefrom.

[Kane]

The general thrust of his rebuttal is that they were so ignorant and uninformed that we shouldn't trust anything they say. It's a classic "Ancient people was stupid!" argument. Frankly, the only stupid people I see are the ones who argue that the ancients were stupid. Isn't it interesting that your comments are based on the same general premise.

Please establish your assertion that my comments are "based on the same general premise."

[Xru]

i read over it and asked you to pick a couple to talk about because i dont have much free time

Why did you choose so many? A couple is two

Well pick as many as you like then. Do I have to do everything for you?

Ya want egg in your beer too?

[skira65]

Your indignation is rather precious in light of how you've missed the actual point of my argument. I can't see how its valid to dismiss a specific body of evidence on the vague grounds that the culture it came from was generally superstitious. So what? It's possible for someone to be superstitious and still be correct about something they've personally seen with their own eyes. You need to actually deal with the evidence instead of looking for bigoted excuses to ignore it.

Concerning the ease of access to information, it's not as though the ancients -- or human culture in general until the invention of mass communication within the last hundred years -- was incapable of spreading and sharing information over distances. It was less efficient, sure, but not impossible. The ancients may have had their superstitions, just as we do today, but they still possessed a wealth of knowledge and a great degree of intelligence and sophistication.

Oh, and don't pretend you don't know what evidence I'm referring to. You may be stupid, but you're not that stupid.

And your continued reading comprehension difficulties are equally precious, you're "arguement" wasn't missed nor was it dismissed. Your arguement consisted of a "hasty generalization"or "fallacy of composition" both logical fallacies then compounded that by addressing a strawman of my point namely superstition, less understanding of natural phenomena = stupid or equivocation fallacy. Not knowing does not equal stupid. Our ancestors were no different than us in potential that does not make them equal however in knowledge another hasty generalisation fallacy simply having the potential to be a surgeon does not make you a surgeon.
Last but not least we have the insults or ad hominem, when you are capable of formulating a reasoned arguement instead of playing poster boy for logical fallacies I'll look at it again. My point was simple with any anecdotal evidence especially of antiquity a deal of caution in accepting these accounts is mandatory i.e NO exceptions in history be they biblcal or otherwise. If this is to difficult for you to grasp let me know maybe I could try coloured crayon.

[Mountain Man]

And your continued reading comprehension difficulties are equally precious, you're "arguement" wasn't missed nor was it dismissed. Your arguement consisted of a "hasty generalization"or "fallacy of composition" both logical fallacies then compounded that by addressing a strawman of my point namely superstition, less understanding of natural phenomena = stupid or equivocation fallacy. Not knowing does not equal stupid. Our ancestors were no different than us in potential that does not make them equal however in knowledge another hasty generalisation fallacy simply having the potential to be a surgeon does not make you a surgeon.
Last but not least we have the insults or ad hominem, when you are capable of formulating a reasoned arguement instead of playing poster boy for logical fallacies I'll look at it again. My point was simple with any anecdotal evidence especially of antiquity a deal of caution in accepting these accounts is mandatory i.e NO exceptions in history be they biblcal or otherwise. If this is to difficult for you to grasp let me know maybe I could try coloured crayon.

Oh, please, look at the language you used in your initial post: "superstitious yokels", "people that saw goblins behind every bush", "very superstitious people". Your intent was clear, to make the ancients sound as stupid as possible in order to downplay and dismiss the testimony of the New Testament writers. Oh, and this isn't a straw man. It was the central premise of your argument and a point you made sure to repeat in every paragraph.

As for your list of fallacies, that's cute and all, but I'm not guilty of them. For one thing, there are ample examples of the intelligence and sophistication of the ancients to draw from -- their contributions to art, science, philosophy, mathematics, literature, etc. are invaluable -- so it's hardly an insufficient sample on which to base a conclusion. If you want to see a fallacy then look no further than your use of circular reasoning which basically goes like this: "Only superstitious people believe in the supernatural; you can't trust superstitious people; the ancients believed in the supernatural; therefore, the ancients were superstitious and can't be trusted." Did you ever stop to consider that they may have believed in the supernatural because they actually had good reason to? Nah, it couldn't be that, because according to dim bulb atheists like you they were just a bunch of "superstitious yokels" who can't be trusted.

You might also want to look up what an ad hominem fallacy actually is. Saying, "You're wrong because you're stupid," is an ad hominem fallacy (even if, as in your case, the person in question actually is stupid). Saying, "You're wrong because [insert argument]. And by the way, you're stupid, too," is not. That's just a good old fashioned insult.

[Mountain Man]

Please establish your assertion that my comments are "based on the same general premise."

That would be the following paragraph that's conspicuously absent from the quoted portion of your post.

[Kane]

That would be the following paragraph that's conspicuously absent from the quoted portion of your post.

You go on and on about our scientific and technological advances, which is all well and good, but we have our own modern superstitions to account for -- a "lucky" item of clothing, always performing tasks in the same ritualistic manner even though it has no proven affect on the outcome, astrology columns in the daily newspaper, Miss Cleo's psychic hotline, etc. -- so we certainly don't win that debate by default. I can't imagine what out ancestors a thousand years from now are going to be saying about us. And I have to wonder what present day knowledge or technology were the ancients lacking that would make them more inclined to accept a story of a resurrected deity in a human body?

There is the second paragraph of the post in question. It does not establish that my previous comments are "based on the same general premise." Your second paragraph is examples of superstitions you have noted in modern days. I have not noted them. Therefore, you are still required to prove that I argue along the same premise that "ancient people were stupid."

I'm fine if you don't want to give of your time to such an undertaking, but please don't assert something about me if you can't show it to be true.

[Mountain Man]

It's amusing when someone tries to defend their arguments by demanding that their opponent explain the obvious.

Your position, in summary, is that we should be suspicious of claims made by the ancients because they lacked our 21st century tools, which is essentially a light weight version of "Ancient people was stupid" minus the pejorative language favored by skinhead65 -- sorry, I meant skira65.

In response to that, I asked a question which you never bothered to answer: What present day knowledge or technology were the ancients lacking that would have made them more inclined to accept a story of a resurrected deity in a human body?

[Jaecp]

Ignorance is not Stupidity

They mean very different things.

You do your position no justice by strawmanning

[Jaecp]

Well pick as many as you like then. Do I have to do everything for you?

Ya want egg in your beer too?

I wanted you to pick the strongest couple of argument there. Its in your best interest to pick the best couple and I want the discussion to be final so, yes, you need to do this part. I originally said the following

Your criticism was... quite animated

Is there a particular paragraph or two that has the best example of what you think is a good condemnation of science? I'm studying for exams and, while I did read through much of it, I don't want to go through a point by point drawn out analyses :D

Wouldn't mind a focused discussion though

And instead of 1 or 2 examples to have a focused discussion on, you have given me eight :-/

[Mountain Man]

Ignorance is not Stupidity

They mean very different things.

You do your position no justice by strawmanning

But neither are they mutually exclusive, and skira65 made his point quite clear -- i.e. "superstitious yokels" -- so it's not a straw man, either. But maybe you'd like to answer the question that Christopher31 avoided: what exactly were the ancients ignorant of that would make them more inclined to believe a resurrection story?

[Chrawnus]

But neither are they mutually exclusive, and skira65 made his point quite clear -- i.e. "superstitious yokels" -- so it's not a straw man, either. But maybe you'd like to answer the question that Christopher31 avoided: what exactly were the ancients ignorant of that would make them more inclined to believe a resurrection story?

<Sarcasm>

They didn't know that science has proven that God does not exist.

This is a fair warning to those sarcastically impaired the preceding text was written in jest.

[SarahB]

Your indignation is rather precious in light of how you've missed the actual point of my argument. I can't see how its valid to dismiss a specific body of evidence on the vague grounds that the culture it came from was generally superstitious. So what? It's possible for someone to be superstitious and still be correct about something they've personally seen with their own eyes. You need to actually deal with the evidence instead of looking for bigoted excuses to ignore it.

Concerning the ease of access to information, it's not as though the ancients -- or human culture in general until the invention of mass communication within the last hundred years -- were incapable of spreading and sharing information over distances. It was less efficient, sure, but not impossible. The ancients may have had their superstitions, just as we do today, but they still possessed a wealth of knowledge and a great degree of intelligence and sophistication.

Oh, and don't pretend you don't know what evidence I'm referring to. You may be stupid, but you're not that stupid.

Concerning the ease of access to information, it's not as though the ancients -- or human culture in general until the invention of mass communication within the last hundred years -- were incapable of spreading and sharing information over distances.

And yet, one of the most amazing claims of the NT -- resurrection of long dead bodies at the time of Jesus' death, showing themselves around Jerusalem -- gets scarcely a mention in only one Gospel.

Jerusalem was a cross-roads of trade in the ANE. Fast spreading stories of revivified corpses would hardly escape notice -- and yet no mention recorded anywhere else.

Maybe because it was just a made-up story? I wonder if I can get Licona to side with that.