Online reading group and book discussion forum
  HOME ENTER FORUMS OUR BOOKS LINKS DONATE ADVERTISE CONTACT  
View unanswered posts | View active topics It is currently Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:26 pm





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Carrier on historical methodology 
Author Message
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Interbane wrote:
This is the way memory works, the way the world works. It isn't a conspiracy or a theory. If the authors of the bible waited 30 years to write things down, it is impossible that even a decent amount of the story did not change. What's even more alarming is that the stories have obviously been harmonized. Not only is the chinese telephone game of memory bad enough, but then the stories have a process of deliberate selection applied to them.


I'm going to provide a link on biblical reliability by Craig Blomberg. He points out that the first century Hebrews had a tradition linked with the scriptures of practiced memorisation, and one individual was famed for his ability to memorise and recite the entire Hebrew bible.
The chinese telephone game is not an appropriate analogy.It wasn't one person whispering to one other person etc. Jesus chose twelve apostles who were with him continually for three years and he had many other disciples who followed him and heard his teachings and witnessed what he did. So it not relying on just one person's memory.

The gospels don't give descriptions of people's faces but record things Jesus did and said. Luke for instance consulted many different witnesses in compiling his account.
We also find in scripture a concern with meaning in words and sentences and not verbatim stenographic recording, so things may be phrased differently and incidents included or not included.
The writers do have a theological purpose in how they arrange the material which was a common practice at the time and not at all strange to them.
We tend to remember important and significant things in our lives and not what we had for breakfast six months ago. The accounts are clearly supernatural and momentous in their understanding that Jesus was the promised Jewish messiah.
There's also the supernatural aspect of the holy spirit in all this, though of course this would not be accepted on naturalist grounds.
Harmonisations which tend to be minor, show up because of the diverse manuscript sources and streams and as I've said centralised harmonisation and editing is simply not possible since copies spread throughout the world at that time.

Here's Blomberg's article. http://www.4truth.net/fourtruthpbbible. ... 8589952775



Mon Sep 22, 2014 4:39 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
geo wrote:
What is relevant is that miracles have never been documented in all of human history except as a manifestation of belief or hallucination. Many religions feature miracles and/or divine intervention. Whether or not Christianity was inspired by a real person or a figment of someone’s imagination is not relevant to whether the beliefs of miracles are true.

Hi Geo,
It's hardly surprising that miracles are linked with religious belief in a supernatural God. Atheists don't tend to request anything from God since they don't believe in God. So what does it prove that believers in a supernatural God claim that he has worked miracles?
There are accounts of miraculous events which people testify to have seen. Carrier's statement is extreme as if he has omniscient knowledge of all events in history at all times.
I know of accounts of a Chinese pastor in the 1800's who prayed for healings for people who were instantly healed. This was Pastor Hsi a confucian scholar who had been an opium addict. This was quietly done and not in a trumpeted way.His biography was written by a presbyterian woman a Mrs Taylor who was not given to sensationalism and concerned with truth and not lying.Simply saying bias ignores the ethical standards many Christian's do aspire to.
I grant there is a sickly world of fraudulent televangelists and greedy fraudsters out there too.
I personally know a guy who was a chronic heroin addict who was instantaneously healed without any withdrawal symptoms when he turned to Jesus for help.
Miracles are not common but neither are they as rare as some sceptics believe either.

Carrier's mythicism is central to his understanding of history. He can't let go of it since he rejects the gospels on the basis of it. Like I said he debated the resurrection of Jesus with Lane Craig. I'm not avoiding his argument. It's just not as good as you think it is. Here's the debate. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akd6qzFYzX8
P.s I don't believe the Joseph Smith story or the angel jibrail story of Islam.



Last edited by Flann 5 on Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:46 pm, edited 5 times in total.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
ant
Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:18 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Quote:
The chinese telephone game is not an appropriate analogy.It wasn't one person whispering to one other person etc


I was referring to how the human mind works with experiential memories. It is like chinese telephone game. Did you read the link I posted, and have you read recent articles regarding memory? I'm pressed for time now, but can find some for you if you wish. When it is a memory of experience(rather than memorizing from a book), our memories are refreshed everytime we recall them, but with slight additions or deletions. This is not at all like a monk memorizing a book. Which is impressive, of course.

But then, even you admit that many of the details are potentially fabricated, which is the point I was going for. The authors would remember the important events, not the menial dialogue or interactions. Yet they include dialogue and menial events.

Beyond that, you believe their supernatural claims. I wasn't even referring to those. They are of course impossible to justify. What has so convinced you? A miracle healing of a heroin addict? Can you even prove to yourself that it was a miracle, rather than simply deciding that it was? Did you not know at the time that the argument from ignorance was a fallacy?


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Mon Sep 22, 2014 5:47 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Hi Interbane,
I'm not saying things in the gospels were potentially fabricated. Sometimes if there was a short account in one gospel a copyist might add to it from a longer account. In the cases of a copyist's deliberate attempted alteration,this stands out like a sore thumb since there are so many different streams and copies unlike that one, and like each other.I'm saying it was not possible for this to be accepted. You need to look at textual criticism to understand the whole story of the transmission of the scriptures.It's a big subject.
I've given reasons why these events would have been memorable to the witnesses and the telephone whispers analogy is not appropriate.It is a supernatural religion and the apostles were promised the aid of the holy spirit.
I know the guy who was healed instantaneously of his heroin addiction and based on his character I have no reason to doubt his account of healing.You can't live in the real world with such extreme scepticism or we wouldn't believe anyone about anything. But we don't actually live this way.
Some people are credible witnesses and all the more so when they suffer and die for their testimony to what they witnessed.



Mon Sep 22, 2014 6:55 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
I dumpster dive for books!

BookTalk.org Moderator
Silver Contributor 2

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 1788
Thanks: 154
Thanked: 742 times in 556 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Flann 5 wrote:
You can't live in the real world with such extreme scepticism or we wouldn't believe anyone about anything. But we don't actually live this way.
Some people are credible witnesses and all the more so when they suffer and die for their testimony to what they witnessed.


But you don't actually live with the lack of skepticism that you have towards the Bible.

If someone claimed to be an eyewitness to something that goes against everything known about science, and it had nothing to do with Christianity, your default position would be disbelief, as it should be. Those eyewitnesses would automatically be noncredible, and it would take an extraordinary amount of evidence to convince you otherwise. Why don't you believe the mythology of every other religion? The answer is: why would you? You know the evidence is not good enough without even investigating it. Even though another God might torment you forever, you don't lose a moment's sleep over it.



The following user would like to thank Dexter for this post:
geo
Mon Sep 22, 2014 7:28 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5786
Thanks: 1359
Thanked: 952 times in 818 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
If miracles go against everything that science tells us, what numerical probability would you assign to a miracle that was claimed to have occurred by, say, a hundred eyewitnesses?
In principle you should be able to assign a precise numerical probability, correct?



Mon Sep 22, 2014 11:13 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
I'm just going to respond to a few points made by different people here. First of all Geo's extract from Carrier comparing Caesar crossing the Rubicon evidence with Jesus resurrection evidence.
Carrier simply rejects out of hand the gospels accounts, which tell of the resurrection of Jesus; as later fiction based on his mythicism and euhemerisation theory.To do this he further rejects the documentary evidence about who wrote the gospels and when. In other words he rejects historical evidence in favour of an untenable pet theory.
He explains away secular historical evidence based on his claims of interpolations and suchlike. Even then he is forced to accept Josephus' reference to James the brother of Jesus as authentic. He tries to get around this by claiming James was a spiritual and not physical brother of Jesus, but this is completely untenable as has been shown here already. This alone punctures his non historical Jesus thesis.
Yet there is good reason to accept that Jesus is referenced in secular historical and other sources and the majority of scholars disagree with Carrier's interpretation of the evidence and think Jesus did exist historically. Here's an example of the evidence for the historicity of Jesus. http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_history.html
Just to reiterate here's a critique of the mythicist claims, the kind of basis he rejects the gospel records on.
http://www.is-there-a-god.info/belief/pagangods.shtml
His hallucinations theory builds on this shaky foundation, when he accepts Paul's writings as authentic and asserts that all the examples Paul gives of Jesus appearing to people after his death must be hallucinatory visions. But Paul's references to these events in some cases are found in the gospels such as when Jesus appeared to the apostles,ate fish and invited Thomas to touch the wound marks in his body. Not hallucinatory vision.But Carrier has already dismissed these accounts and forges ahead with his cargo cults hallucinations thesis.

Dexter wrote:
Why don't you believe the mythology of every other religion?

You are assuming here Dexter that Christianity is a mythology, which is just what I am showing is not the case.I have some knowledge of other religions and have good reasons beyond supernatural claims for not believing them. My belief in Christianity is based on many different factors not just the miraculous, but I have good reasons to believe that too which I have already indicated.

Interbane claims the gospel writers could not have accurately remembered the events and sayings of Jesus. Do you then reject as fiction all memoirs and autobiographies where often people remember things even from childhood in detail? Carrier's account in "Sense and goodness" of his childhood and teen years and experiences are also fiction if that is the case.Do you believe the emperor Napoleon Bonaparte existed historically? Are these accounts not ridiculously improbable?



Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:45 am, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Sep 23, 2014 7:41 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Quote:
I know the guy who was healed instantaneously of his heroin addiction and based on his character I have no reason to doubt his account of healing.You can't live in the real world with such extreme scepticism or we wouldn't believe anyone about anything. But we don't actually live this way.


I absolutely do live in the real world with this extreme skepticism, and it was born from finding out that the majority of what I believed all across the board was false. I believed in so many false things, from wives tales to youthful superstitions to urban myths to the tall tales of friends. Yet even with this extreme skepticism, I believe many of the things people tell me, even if I sometimes understand that they may be embellishing. I also believe that the only proper way skepticism can apply to sorting through other people's knowledge is proper process, what Carrier calls method.

You believe a heroin addict based on his character. Boy we've had different lives. In the car while on the trip to the emergency room, the panic attack/withdrawals I was having from a certain chemical were like torture. At one point in the short ten minute ride, I told my wife what I'd been doing. All of the symptoms vanished instantaneously. In hindsight, I understand that it was the weight of guilt that I had let go of, the guilt from hiding what I was doing. Guilt can have such an effect, when you finally get rid of it. I'm sure the sanctification of an ideal, of a god, would have a similar effect.

But you believe the ordeal was supernatural. No skepticism whatsoever. Not even a hint that a natural cause could be in play. I suppose you see such supernatural possibilities all around you. You refuse to dig deeper into what the actual natural cause could be, and settle for a supernatural conclusion. Skepticism is a virtue, if truth is an ideal. Only by being skeptical do you have a chance of admonishing your own beliefs. No conclusion you'd come to would be immune. You'd find that over time, many of your golden cow beliefs would turn out false, and the layer of supernatural superstition would fall away from your view of the world.

Quote:
I'm not saying things in the gospels were potentially fabricated. Sometimes if there was a short account in one gospel a copyist might add to it from a longer account.


Referring to the original writings, not the copies, you are dealing with the documentation of experiential memory after decades have passed. You're saying that you're not skeptical of the claim that each and every line of dialogue was exact after sitting for 3 decades in a man's brain? They weren't monks with textbooks, able to re-read the lines over and over to commit them to memory. These were experiential memories, exceptionally fragile and prone to decay and alteration. Not only that, but particular lines of dialogue would be nothing but fuzz. You'd have the incidentals, as you mentioned(which is also why I assumed you understood my point). My point being, it is impossible for a man to remember every line of dialogue from a year's worth of experiences. Some of that must be fabricated or misremembered. To believe otherwise is to possess no skepticism at all. In other words, having faith.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
Flann 5, geo
Tue Sep 23, 2014 10:15 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
pets endangered by possible book avalanche

BookTalk.org Moderator
Platinum Contributor

Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4533
Location: NC
Thanks: 1983
Thanked: 2046 times in 1530 posts
Gender: Male

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Just some general comments:

I can't see any legitimate historical scholar treating Jesus' resurrection as an actual resurrection. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am surprised to see this book discussion going in this direction. The story of a man-god born of a virgin resurrected from the dead are all motifs that have been used before in other religions. I'm sorry, but we've truly gone down the rabbit hole when we start to take such magical thinking seriously.

If you believe in Jesus' resurrection, logic and reason mean nothing. Carrier of all people should know that.

Carrier must be a gift to the Fundamentalist community because he takes the resurrection seriously enough to actually debate it. He’s far too wrapped up in Creationist beliefs to be a credible scholar himself. He's the exact opposite of a True Believer biblical "scholar" whose only interest really is to rationalize his personal beliefs. Carrier uses his scholarly pursuits only to further his own anti-religion ideology instead of the plain pursuit of truth.

This is exactly why serious scholars and scientists don't debate creationists. Because Creationists have already decided the Bible is true and all evidence that contradicts this will be rejected out of hand. As such, Carrier is only giving Creationists a platform.

What’s next, guys? Shall we start debating the age of the earth or how Noah got all those animals aboard the boat or why God put all those dinosaur bones in the ground? I mean, seriously?


_________________
-Geo
Question everything


The following user would like to thank geo for this post:
Interbane
Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:13 am
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Hi Interbane.
You've had some extreme experiences in your life.
I know of other instances not explicable by natural causes.I just picked out that guy as he was the one who was talking to me about the gospel years ago.I wasn't interested at all. He had been a hopeless case and the doctor had told him he would be dead within six months.
It's not natural to be instantaneously healed with no withdrawal symptoms at all with such severe heroin addiction.And it happened when he prayed to Jesus for help.He wasn't religious at the time and wasn't sure if God existed. It was the"if you really are there and can help me" kind of prayer.
On a personal note and at risk of being psychoanalysed,I was put in institutional care at the age of seven in a place run by Catholic nuns who I found very humane really.At ten I was transferred to an industrial school run by Catholic brothers and priests.It was Dickensian and harsh. When I was let out of there at sixteen, I rejected religion and belief in God and when I met that guy in my early twenties was in no frame of mind to listen to anyone advocating any religion.
So that's my background. Sometimes I think people have the impression it's just something I always believed.

There are accounts of miraculous healings such as Pastor Hsi who I mentioned but he's not the only one. I agree things need to be weighed and assessed but I think they can be.
I linked rather a lengthy article related to hallucinations on the other thread. He mentions that it was quite usual in Israel at that time for disciples of Rabbi's to take notes.In the final analysis Christianity is a supernatural religion and they were promised the aid of the holy spirit in bringing things to their remembrance.



The following user would like to thank Flann 5 for this post:
ant, geo, Interbane
Tue Sep 23, 2014 11:23 am
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Quote:
It's not natural to be instantaneously healed with no withdrawal symptoms at all with such severe heroin addiction.

You're using layman language to justify an appeal to ignorance. But the appeal to ignorance cannot be justified in that way Flann. Let me explain.

You're saying that "it's not natural" for a man to recover instantaneously from heroin addiction. This means it's exceptionally abnormal, unheard of. But does it really mean that it is impossible in a naturalistic universe? No, not at all. Consider my own experience, that is freakishly similar. The physiological cause of withdrawals and panic is tied into neurotransmitter deficiencies and other physical systems in the brain, which are regulated and controlled by belief and disposition. As soon as I let go of my guilt, my symptoms were cured. Within minutes. I understand how and why this is natural, having looked into the mechanisms. It's an "unnatural" occurrence, exceptionally rare or unheard of. But that's layman's speak, and doesn't mean it is supernatural. If you're saying that what happened to the heroin addict was supernatural, you're claiming that no such physical causation could possibly account for his recovery. Which means you know of all such possible physical mechanisms, and have ruled them out. If this is not the case(I'm sure you'll agree that it's not), and you're instead appealing to the seemingly "unnatural" characteristic of the event, then you're by definition appealing to ignorance. I can formulate this logically if you wish. It's fallacious thinking. Avoiding fallacy isn't an easy thing, so it's not a mark against you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Quote:
In the final analysis Christianity is a supernatural religion and they were promised the aid of the holy spirit in bringing things to their remembrance.


This needs to be verified initially, not in a final analysis. The reason is that the support is circular. You're using the words themselves as support for their own veracity. Who says the holy spirit would aid them in remembrance? Did they say it? What do you have to justify this claim? It needs to be examined, if you use it to support the idea that the authors of the gospel did not alter or misremember. The problem is, you need to establish this fact before you can appeal to the words themselves; the idea of the holy spirit. It's circular reasoning, which is fallacious.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning

Quote:
There are accounts of miraculous healings such as Pastor Hsi who I mentioned but he's not the only one. I agree things need to be weighed and assessed but I think they can be.


Of course they can be. And they should be. But not just weighed and assessed, but weighed and assessed using proper method. Logic is the primary method of assessment. Fallacious logic means your conclusion fails the test.

The common theme you'll see is that finding the truth isn't so easy as everyone believes. Which makes sense, given the fact that no one on Earth is free from false beliefs. It isn't extreme skepticism, as you call it. It is sufficient skepticism. Call it a different perspective if you will, but you have next to no criticism at all from my point of view. It is severely lacking. Only by using proper method can your criticism be considered effective. If you "weigh" and "assess" using strings of words without logical function, calling things "reasonable" and "sensible" without appeal to the underlying logic, then your criticisms are anything but. You must adhere to method, process, logic. It is the only way to know for sure if your conclusions are correct(or at the very least, valid or not untrue).

Quote:
What’s next, guys? Shall we start debating the age of the earth or how Noah got all those animals aboard the boat or why God put all those dinosaur bones in the ground? I mean, seriously?


Question everything, debate everything?

The problem is, a massive percentage of people already think the resurrection was an actual event. Literalists don't need a platform for many of the more ridiculous ideas, because the platform already exists in the form of churches. How does the "other side", the rational skeptic, reach the general population except through debate?

Still, I agree with you. The issue isn't to challenge the ridiculous ideas directly, but to challenge the foundations of belief. I'm not sure what the foundation would be, since everything in a literalist's worldview is internally coherent(if also by definition circular). What I always find puzzling is that people accept the bible in the first place. It's not as if Sunday School starts off with the historiographical merits of the authors of the gospels. There is belief before there is critical analysis, and by the time there is critical analysis, it is pointed at the skeptic rather than at the belief(look at all the hoops Flann is jumping through). There is an amazingly admirable quality to the power of the Christian meme to delude people. We can see how it works, but damned if there's a way to undo it.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


The following user would like to thank Interbane for this post:
ant, geo
Tue Sep 23, 2014 1:57 pm
Profile
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5786
Thanks: 1359
Thanked: 952 times in 818 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Quote:
The physiological cause of withdrawals and panic is tied into neurotransmitter deficiencies and other physical systems in the brain, which are regulated and controlled by belief and disposition. As soon as I let go of my guilt, my symptoms were cured.


I think this is a pseudo explanation of sorts and a faulty comparison to what Flann has presented.

But slow down for a second, please..,


Quote:
As soon as I let go of my guilt, my symptoms were cured
.

How exactly did an emotional transition (guilt to guiltlessness) affect a physical state?
identify the physical bridge between the two, please.



Tue Sep 23, 2014 2:37 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

Gold Contributor

Joined: Jun 2011
Posts: 5786
Thanks: 1359
Thanked: 952 times in 818 posts
Gender: None specified
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
Quote:
Consider my own experience, that is freakishly similar. The physiological cause of withdrawals and panic is tied into neurotransmitter deficiencies and other physical systems in the brain, which are regulated and controlled by belief and disposition. As soon as I let go of my guilt, my symptoms were cured. Within minutes. I understand how and why this is natural, having looked into the mechanisms. It's an "unnatural" occurrence, exceptionally rare or unheard of. But that's layman's speak, and doesn't mean it is supernatural.



Here's what I am thinking.

You are attempting to compare your experience with Flann's addict. By explaining away yours that is "freakishly similar" you've explained away the miracle that Flann claims to have happened in his anecdotal tale.


you wrote:

Quote:
The physiological cause of withdrawals and panic is tied into neurotransmitter deficiencies and other physical systems in the brain, which are regulated and controlled by belief and disposition


Really? How? What is the bridge between an emotional subjective state, and an objectively verifiable physical state?

You are attempting to explain away subjective states of mind by saying they are "neurotransmitter deficiencies" and other physical systems

What was the "other" physical state that bridged a subjective experience like "guilt" to a physical reaction?

What neurotransmitter was responsible for your traumatic emotional state and the addicts that are obviously subjectively different?

Are you saying that the addicts physical state of duress was the same as yours?
There is no evidence to corroborate a claim like that.

Would your brain scans be identical to the addicts during withdrawal?

Human beings are "multiply realized" at a physical level.
You can not explain away the addicts state and recovery by comparing his experience to yours.



Last edited by ant on Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Sep 23, 2014 4:58 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
Nutty for Books


Joined: Jul 2013
Posts: 1581
Location: Dublin
Thanks: 832
Thanked: 705 times in 605 posts
Gender: Male
Country: Ireland (ie)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
I would agree that it's not straightforward when it comes to claims of the miraculous and many things could be explained naturalistically or maybe fraud.
It is difficult going back 2 millenia to say we know something happened.The resurrection of Jesus fits the circumstances but no one today could say they were there and witnessed it. People generally don't become Christians because of apologetics about the resurrection. Usually it's more they are impressed with someone's character and life,or conversely are put off by hypocrisy in religious people.
Be that as it may,there is an experiential side to it which is subjective and relational so can't be demonstrated outwardly and that's the main reason I would say it's so hard to convince us that we are wrong. Some say it's imaginary friend syndrome but we find he does answer our prayers.There is a regenerative aspect to Christianity which is hard to define.

I wasn't converted because of that guys story, impressive as it was even when he was showing me the physical scars on his arms of his addiction.I gave him a hard time asking him to explain God's non intervention in the Holocaust etc.
Still,his addiction stopped immediately in answer to prayer, and I gave you other providential stuff about Hudson Taylor which coincided with prayer.
I don't think all claims of miracles can be explained naturalistically but I would accept that the evidence should be good and documented.I would accept certain people as credible witnesses if I knew them well but it falls short of absolute standards of proof.
Richard Carrier would say we are psycho-something or others. I'm not completely down on sceptics and recognise there is a valuable and important aspect to scepticism which protects against exploitation and gullibility.I would be the first to admit that some religions are a bit crazy and am as baffled as anyone as to how someone could believe Joseph's Smith's story,for instance.
Just not to give you too easy a time of it in this post Interbane. You talk about my jumping through hoops but I think I've also shown that Mr Reason Richard Carrier has veered into some weird ideas himself!



Last edited by Flann 5 on Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Sep 23, 2014 5:20 pm
Profile Email
User avatar
Years of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membershipYears of membership
BookTalk.org Hall of Fame

BookTalk.org Moderator
Gold Contributor

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 7116
Location: Da U.P.
Thanks: 1096
Thanked: 2115 times in 1690 posts
Gender: Male
Country: United States (us)

Post Re: Carrier on historical methodology
ant wrote:
How exactly did an emotional transition (guilt to guiltlessness) affect a physical state?
identify the physical bridge between the two, please.


Before I give any information, I'd ask your motive. Let's say I have no freaking clue. How would you respond?

Anyway, there is no "exact" with this subject. Not unless every neuron and chemical molecule is traced and modeled in the brain under discussion. Your question is a red herring. We can come to strong conclusions without the exactness you're requesting.

That guilt has a physical locationin the brain is the first clue. Not only does guilt elicit reactions in that region of the brain, but damage to that region of the brain leaves people without guilt - as psychopaths.

That guilt elicits autonomic physiological changes in the body is another clue. Obviously the mind changes the body, there is nothing remarkable here.

That guilt has a chemical signature is another clue. See here here here, here, and especially here.

These are links from research I've done for my book, found from leap frogging articles for hours. Feel free to read them entirely, if you have the time. They paint a clear picture that guilt supervenes on the physiological systems of the body in powerful ways. They show that our subjective moods are entirely supervenient on physical systems.

Guilt supervenes on the body, and when my level of guilt changed(drastically), my body responded in kind. We do not need anything more "exact" than this to know it was naturalistic. It is a strong conclusion.

ant wrote:
You are attempting to compare your experience with Flann's addict. By explaining away yours that is "freakishly similar" you've explained away the miracle that Flann claims to have happened in his anecdotal tale.


I gave an equal yet different personal experience, although I didn't "explain away" either of them. How do you "explain away" something? Both experiences are amazing and incredible. They are both examples of naturalistic miracles.

All I did was show that it is fallacious to believe either of them are supernatural occurrences, and very strong evidence showing that they are naturalistic. If that demeans the amazing nature of the events, then that is your own fault. Do you need the events to be supernatural in order for them to inspire awe?

Flann wrote:
I don't think all claims of miracles can be explained naturalistically


This does NOT justify the conclusion that the miracles you're referring to are therefore supernatural. If this sounds silly to you, then perhaps you've been using fallacious thinking for so long that proper logic is silly. Even so, do some research yourself. Wrap your head around the argument from ignorance fallacy, to the point you understand most or all of it's applications. You'll see that your point above is precisely that - an argument from ignorance. I don't mean to be harsh, but it is clear, and easily recognized. As I said, do some research yourself. Consider me just a messenger.

Flann wrote:
You talk about my jumping through hoops but I think I've also shown that Mr Reason Richard Carrier has veered into some weird ideas himself!


Weirdness isn't a criteria for dismissal. Many things we know to be true are exceptionally weird. The criteria for judging them is well known. If Carrier's ideas are false, then the proper application of method would show this to be the case. Appeals to incredulity are fallacious.


Sorry to get all haughty with logic, but we're going in circles repeating the same things, and you repeat the same logical mistakes again and again. I'm not sure if you misunderstood me in previous posts when I told you certain types of reasoning were fallacious. Do you distrust logic? Is even logic invalid when the subject is the bible? Do you not recognize the fallacies based on the logical structure behind the words? None of this casts any sort of shadow on you, and I'm not implying that. The majority of people can't recognize logical fallacies to save their lives, and couldn't care less besides.


_________________
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move.” - Douglas Adams


Tue Sep 23, 2014 6:06 pm
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 64 posts ] • Topic evaluate: Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.Evaluations: 0, 0.00 on the average.  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:

Announcements 

• Promote Your FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:33 pm

• Promote Your NON-FICTION Book on BookTalk.org
Sun Jul 30, 2017 7:18 pm



Site Resources 
HELPFUL INFO:
Community Rules & Tips
Frequently Asked Questions
BBCode Explained
Author Interview Transcripts
Book Discussion Leaders

IDEAS FOR WHAT TO READ:
Bestsellers
Book Awards
• Book Reviews
• Online Books
• Team Picks
Newspaper Book Sections

WHERE TO BUY BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

BEHIND THE BOOKS:
• Coming Soon!

PROMOTE YOUR BOOK!
Advertise on BookTalk.org
Promote your FICTION book
Promote your NON-FICTION book





BookTalk.org is a thriving book discussion forum, online reading group or book club. We read and talk about both fiction and non-fiction books as a community. Our forums are open to anyone in the world. While discussing books is our passion we also have active forums for talking about poetry, short stories, writing and authors. Our general discussion forum section includes forums for discussing science, religion, philosophy, politics, history, current events, arts, entertainment and more. We hope you join us!


Navigation 
MAIN NAVIGATION

HOMEFORUMSOUR BOOKSAUTHOR INTERVIEWSADVERTISELINKSFAQDONATETERMS OF USEPRIVACY POLICYSITEMAP

OTHER PAGES WORTH EXPLORING
Banned Book ListOnline Reading GroupTop 10 Atheism Books

Copyright © BookTalk.org 2002-2019. All rights reserved.
Display Pagerank