Re: Christ in Egypt: Introduction
Posted: Fri Jul 22, 2011 1:35 am
My "stupid" comment was not directed at the claim that miracles are possible (although I do think it is stupid) but at claims that deny scientific accounts of the history of the universe, reject laws of motion and evolution, and question the periodic table of the elements. My "unfounded proposition" (your words) is actually that consistent observation is reliable, while inconsistent claims are unreliable.ScoobyNubis wrote:YOU feel it's "obviously rational" (I actually don't feel that way and there's no particular reason anyone should) treating that as an unassailable fact which anyone who disagrees with is "stupid" (your word) and then trying to use your entirely unfounded proposition to disprove or demonstrate other theses. The second case is actually an ABUSE of the scientific method and amounts to little more than reducing it to a club with which to pound your opponents to silence, much as certain other people wield their Bibles.
The situation here is that over the years there have been numerous claims of events that defy the laws of physics. On examination, none have ever provided a skerrick of evidence, and, in my opinion, all reflect psychological wishful thinking or evil motives.
The parsimonious explanation is that people want to believe in miracles, and convince themselves and others they are possible, but they are wrong. This provides a complete explanation for why this false claim persists. Committing the same error over and over again in defiance of evidence is an old definition of stupidity.
I personally find advocacy for miracles to be offensive and unethical. Miracles serve a false and obsolete cosmology whose interest is the corrupt power of the priesthood. Decisions should be based on evidence, and there is no evidence for miracles. Miracles are nothing more than fraudulent lies aimed at manipulating public opinion. The big daddy of miracles is the purported incarnation of Jesus Christ. This is why Murdock condemns this story as a conspiracy, "the greatest story ever sold".
This debate on the epistemology of miracles all points to the need for a new paradigm in religious studies that systematically excludes unscientific claptrap. Suggesting there is any ethical content in belief in miracles is a way to undermine the need for coherence in religious analysis.
Sorry to be harsh about this, but vacillating on this topic is a recipe for confusion.
This is not an abusive stance on my part by any means. I am simply saying that I hold a position that coheres with all verified evidence, whereas the rejection of my view coheres with no verified evidence, and has a perfectly logical psychological explanation in wishful thinking. The weight of evidence means I am justified in saying I am right and my opponents are wrong. If searchers for the miraculous ever come up with any evidence, I am open to change my opinion, but it really ain't gonna happen. Don't hold your breath, unless you have a miraculous relationship to the need for oxygen.