Doulos wrote: Wow Dexter. Please pardon me if I'm reading your post incorrectly, but do you always answer polite replies with such sarcasm and condescension? You mentioned in another post that you were a teacher. I am as well, with experience teaching in several countries and education systems, both public and private. I sincerely hope this isn't the tone you use with your students when they have a viewpoint that differs from your own.

No, I don't. As I'm sure you realize, there are different rules and expectations when it comes to internet discussions with strangers. I didn't mean to offend with my tone, just having a little fun. I may be impatient when it comes to theists inverting normal standards of proof.

Doulos wrote: They are not neutral accounts, but the writings of followers of Christ who were convinced of his claims, and who were seeking to 'prove' this to others as well. ..
Part of the 'extraordinary evidence' of the truth of the biblical accounts was in the lives of the people who wrote them, since these were living, active teachers while the letters of the New Testament circulated. A group of common people suddenly left their jobs, lives and culture (since they were eventually barred from synagogue life) and followed this Jesus unto the point of death..

The sincerity of believers does not get you very far at all. People have believed and have been willing to die for beliefs throughout history. Surely that hardly counts for evidence.

Doulos, your courtesy is appreciated. Dexter expresses a very reasonable frustration, that science generally finds it incomprehensible that people believe things that are simply false. You assert that Luke's claims to be writing history constitute evidence. Yet Luke wrote generations after the supposed time of Christ, and derived his historical fables from Mark. If Jesus was real, and not a myth, it defies credibility that the "evidence" is so late and so embedded in texts whose primary objective is to inculcate religious belief.

A lot of current research argues that the actual evidence is far more compatible with the invention of Christ than with the supposed 'big bang' of expansion of Christianity from a single historical founder. Paul barely quotes Jesus, and then only in ways that suggest a cultic archetype rather than a real person. The supposed external evidence such as from Josephus is blatant fabrication. Writers such as Philo who would have written about Jesus if he was real are silent. Earl Doherty's Jesus Neither God Nor Man presents a comprehensive logical and evidentiary demolition of the Historical Jesus hypothesis.

Far more plausible is the idea that ancient religion involved cosmic mysteries that were seen as distasteful to the Jewish Yahweh cult, and these Gnostic traditions were suppressed by the political agenda of making Jesus the basis of imperial stability for Rome. Reconstructing the fragments of Gnostic stellar myths presents a far more scientific approach to early Christianity than any effort to rehabilitate the tired old supernatural fantasies. This scientific method opens the prospect of Christianity being reconciled with science, discarding the supernatural weeds in favour of the fertile seeds of natural reality.

All supernatural ideas are incompatible with science. There is no evidence whatsoever for any supernatural claims, and much psychological evidence for how such claims can grow into believable myths that resonate with popular emotional desires. Wishing does not make it so. Truth can only be assessed against rigorous observation and logical coherence. Christian dogmas such as the cross and resurrection and even the virgin birth have a symbolic beauty and meaning, but the evidence of continuity with older myth indicates they were invented, not based on true history.

Hi Doulos, welcome to booktalk!

Doulos:
The gospel accounts are that 'extraordinary evidence.'

Divine birth
Miracles
Fulfilled prophesies
Claims of divinity
Death and resurrection
Meeting his disciples after resurrection
Raising to heaven

As others have pointed out the above does not constitute evidence, especially not extraordinary evidence. Let me show you by example.

I contend that I have built a rocket ship that will get me to mars and back in under a week.

That is an extraordinary claim. It needs extraordinary evidence.

Here’s my evidence, a 300 page document where I explain how anti-ion propulsion technology harnesses the power of cosmic string vibrations to subvert the constraints of inertia. I have testimonials from Dr. Robert Smith who writes “I have witnessed this ship first hand. It is definitely real, and will definitely fly to mars and back in under a week.” I have further testimonials from Professor Erin Flieslots, who says “I have personally driven the anti-ion drive ship past the moon and back on several test runs.”

In addition to these testimonials there are also diagrams and images of the anti-ion propulsion system.

MARS OR BUST

Outside of this document, my testimony, and the testimony of everybody who is employed by me, like those who run my website, or those who work for my promotional company, or those who have invested in my company on the basis of this same 300 page document, there is no confirming evidence for my statements.

By your standards, the extraordinary evidence can be listed as follows.

Eyewitness testimony of the ship’s existence

Reliable accounts of flying the ship, and of witnessing the ship flying.

The ship has already made several test flights past the moon.

The ship uses cutting edge anti-ion technology which is vastly superior to anything in development by my competitors.

The engine harnesses cosmic string vibrations to generate thrust, this is beyond our current technology, and so probably can make it to mars and back in under a week.


You can see in my example why the things listed do not in any way constitute evidence, much less extraordinary evidence, and no matter how many people have been convinced by this 300 page document outlining exactly how the anti-ion thrust ship can get to mars and back in less than a week, it is still a circular set of reasonings that rely on the claims as evidence for themselves.

Evidence has more than a scientific connotation, as in a court of law for example.

As in a court of law, there may be material evidence, but there may also be witnesses as well. The gospel accounts are precisely this. Either first or second-hand accounts of the life of Jesus, as Luke makes explicit in the opening of his gospel:

I was also referring to evidence that is allowable in court. Including witnesses. You have none. You have a book instead. That's the truth of it, unfortunately. The book can't be considered admissable as an "ancient document" in court due to the unknown chain of possession.

If it were, you would still need a mountain of ordinary evidence in conjunction with the bible to offset the precedent. Even in the court of law.

In my experience, people who support the bible want extremely low standards of support for their belief to be accepted. An entire nation of people. There is a reason the word "faith" is used, but so many new up and comers believe they have PROOF that their belief is true. In every case I've encountered, they have no understanding of the distinction between proof and evidence. They have no clue what constitutes justified evidence, either legally or scientifically. It's no wonder we have people believing in every fantasy under the sun.

In the specific case we're looking at though, I would say that there will never be sufficient extraordinary evidence to prove the claims of Jesus to all people (barring the second coming of Christ in Christian belief).

That is why you only have "faith" to justify your belief(I don't consider faith a justification of belief). Not evidence, and certainly not proof. I believe you continue to misuse the word "proof" as well, Doulos. If you had proof, no matter the archetype, it would mean your belief is incontrovertible and all the critics on this website would change their minds if they saw it. Unless you have something new, that I haven't seen in my roughly 10,000 hours of studying the debate between science and religion, then I'd humbly claim you're mistaken.

Flip the analysis around. In a desire to find falsehood, people often create their own contradictions as well. There is bias in every person. The challenge is to read as neutrally as possible by being aware of our own bias.

I wasn't making any exceptions. Upside down or inside out, we all have bias. In our desire to find anything, we often create contradictions. I agree with you here, and suggest that it's more impactful and severe than you realize. I've made it a habit to familiarize myself with as types of bias as I can. I recognize them often within myself. Damping the bias is like pulling a sliver, but necessary.

The majority of my experience with intelligent religious people is that they become frustrated to a point where they submit fully to their bias, and don't spare an ounce of effort to overcome it. It's a curious pattern. For most people on this site, if you point out bias they will admit it. Except myself, I'll just get hateful and call you names.

I'm just seeking to demonstrate that the idea of logical/rational choice has different possible sources of 'evidence.'

If it is to remain logical and rational, your options are limited. Brainstorm at will. Google it also. Find the support you're looking for. I hope you succeed.

In simple language, a logical fallacy means that the point raised cannot be used to PROVE a logical point. In other words, it is insufficient to allow uncontested proof of the premise. This doesn't mean that the 'logical fallacy' is necessarily false or untrue in itself (though they can be). It simply means that you can't use a logical fallacy to prove something, because the logical fallacy itself is not 'provable.'

Yes, a fallacy is neutral. Many use it as if it were evidence of a false claim. A claim isn't false because of a fallacy, but the fallacy does not support it. Your use of the word "prove" makes me anxious. Proof is a rare thing.

Doulos wrote:

DWill wrote: Can you explain to me why meaning needs to reside in a power outside of ourselves? Even if the universe has no meaning, why does that make meaning impossible for me?

You have two excellent questions here, so I'll take them in turn.

Meaning does not need to reside in a power outside of ourselves. Neither does there scientifically 'need' to be a God, which is where Christians and Muslims often feel challenged by evolution. The question is not whether there 'needs' to be, but whether there IS a power outside of ourselves. And if so, does he/she deserve our worship and obedience.

Meaning is not impossible in a meaningless universe. I was simply seeking to demonstrate that existance with God offers a 'greater' potential meaning than without. This was in response to Dexter's May 20th post.

Thanks for the good questions DWill. If I've missed any of your nuances, please let me know and I'll try to answer them as best I can.

I appreciate your reply, Doulos, and your openness and courtesy. I was confused initially because I thought I had responded to ant's post, yet you replied as if you were the author of that post. Now ant and you have somewhat similar views, but you can't be the same person...can you?

@ Dexter
No prob. I'm not adverse to having a little fun myself.

The sincerity of believers does not get you very far at all. People have believed and have been willing to die for beliefs throughout history. Surely that hardly counts for evidence.

I actually didn't mean it as a measure for authenticity, but rather as a simple statement of clarification and fact. The accounts are not neutral histories... they are letters written for the evangelical and discipling purposes.

Doulos, your courtesy is appreciated. Dexter expresses a very reasonable frustration, that science generally finds it incomprehensible that people believe things that are simply false. You assert that Luke's claims to be writing history constitute evidence. Yet Luke wrote generations after the supposed time of Christ, and derived his historical fables from Mark. If Jesus was real, and not a myth, it defies credibility that the "evidence" is so late and so embedded in texts whose primary objective is to inculcate religious belief.

It defies modern standards of evidence (in a technological CNN world). The Gospels and letters of the New Testament were products of a primarily oral culture. They were set to papyrus beginning in the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries (Mark is considered the earliest gospel with dating probably around 30 years after Jesus' death. Later dating is based upon a disbelief in the possibility of prophetic writing.) They thus reflect an already existant body of belief (sometimes called the hypothetical Q gospel), which was in circulation well prior to the time of writing.

I'm not sure what you're terming 'two generations,' as Luke is generally accepted as written in the early 60s, and so again in the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries. His Gospel obviously derives some material from Mark, but adds detail as well. This detail was most likely already in circulation, and again could be varified by the still living witnesses, critics, and disciples of Jesus.

The fact that it was designed to inculcate belief is obvious. This does not denote falsehood though, merely personal conviction.

A lot of current research argues that the actual evidence is far more compatible with the invention of Christ than with the supposed 'big bang' of expansion of Christianity from a single historical founder. Paul barely quotes Jesus, and then only in ways that suggest a cultic archetype rather than a real person. The supposed external evidence such as from Josephus is blatant fabrication. Writers such as Philo who would have written about Jesus if he was real are silent. Earl Doherty's Jesus Neither God Nor Man presents a comprehensive logical and evidentiary demolition of the Historical Jesus hypothesis.

I think you're a bit out of date with this assertion. There was a period when it was fashionable to assert theories of Jesus' non-existance. That view has basically lost ground as critical scholarship has tested the theories. Even liberal agnostic/atheist theologians like Ehrman now accept the reality of Jesus' existance.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Josephus is unreliable. There are about four passages from Josephus which are possibly modified, but this modification is mainly in degree (based upon Syraic desert copy of Josephus and scholarly critique). The fact that he wrote about a historical Jesus has never really been in doubt by mainstream academia, and Josephus is still regarded as one of our primary sources for his period. Which Philo are you referring to by the way, and why do you think he would hae written about Jesus?

I'm afraid I can't comment on Doherty's book, as I haven't read it. If you'd like to post some of his more convincing theories, I'd be happy to discuss them with you.

I appreciate your reply, Doulos, and your openness and courtesy. I was confused initially because I thought I had responded to ant's post, yet you replied as if you were the author of that post. Now ant and you have somewhat similar views, but you can't be the same person...can you?

I'm not sure who Ant is, but I'm fairly certain I'm not him/her.

My wife tells me I'm much more handsome and suave then Ant, but I think she's heavily biased and possibly blind.

Far more plausible is the idea that ancient religion involved cosmic mysteries that were seen as distasteful to the Jewish Yahweh cult, and these Gnostic traditions were suppressed by the political agenda of making Jesus the basis of imperial stability for Rome. Reconstructing the fragments of Gnostic stellar myths presents a far more scientific approach to early Christianity than any effort to rehabilitate the tired old supernatural fantasies. This scientific method opens the prospect of Christianity being reconciled with science, discarding the supernatural weeds in favour of the fertile seeds of natural reality.

Christianity was not accepted by Rome until at least the time of Constantine, and even then only in parts of the empire under his control. That leaves over 300 years where Christianity was a persecuted sect.

I'm not sure why the Roman authorities would suppress gnosticism (there also being non-Christian gnostics), which would not conflict with their accepted norms of belief in favour of a Christianity which they deemed 'atheist.' Christianity never 'suppressed' gnosticism, and I'm not sure how an illegal entity could do so. They simply taught against it and held up the example of a real Jesus who was accepted as both human and divine.

As to science and compatibility with Christianity, there is no real barrier even now, as Francis Collins is an example of.

As others have pointed out the above does not constitute evidence, especially not extraordinary evidence. Let me show you by example.
.

What I've posted is evidence, as is the humourous example you posted. You did a nice drawing by the way. I'll give you 2 stars.

What you're talking about is whether the evidence is accepted, which is a different question.


If Dr. Robert Smith, Professor Erin Flieslots and yourself give up your jobs and highly promising art careers to stand behind your 300 page document, it would add weight to your contention.

If your contention does not lead to material gain, but rather ostracism, persecution and no stars in kindergarten, that too would weigh.

If hundreds of people who are not in your employ also stand behind your testimony, that too would add to the weight of your evidence.

If you and those others who witnessed it accepted death and torture for no apparent gain, merely to stand behind the truth of what you saw, that too would add to the strength of your witness.

Part of the extraordinaryness of the evidence lies in the reliability of the people who espouse it. We live in a world where few people demonstrate real strength of chracter, and I include many of our popular religious leaders in this failure. Strength of conviction does not equal truth, but especially when it stands firm till the end, it does deserve a careful look.