Speaking in 'tongues'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?

Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.

How does one gets to know about it?  Through documentation.

I'm not aware of any event that is 100% repeatable, in fact I would say it's nigh on impossible. There is no Groundhog Day. That's why science is the way it is - provisional, because we can't predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of any event.

It's not your science it's all our science.

[Andy]

What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?

Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.

How does one gets to know about it?  Through documentation.

I'm not aware of any event that is 100% repeatable, in fact I would say it's nigh on impossible. There is no Groundhog Day. That's why science is the way it is - provisional, because we can't predict with 100% accuracy the outcome of any event.

It's not your science it's all our science.

What you on about now, apart from putting words in people's mouths yet again. Fuck off.

[2Corrie]

How would you go about explaining the empty tomb,

It's fiction.

Or, if not, human beings moved the body elsewhere, likely to an unmarked grave.

the early accounts of the resurrection, the enemy testimony to the missing body, the spread of Christianity in Jerusalem, the willingness of the apostles to face agonizing deaths... ?

All fiction.

What a stunning rebuttal of the Christian faith, have you considered publishing?

[jeremyp]

What a stunning rebuttal of the Christian faith, have you considered publishing?

I'd be rather late to the party. I haven't said anything that isn't held by at least some mainstream scholars and the idea that Jesus rose from the dead is  frankly laughable.

[Spud]

As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.

What about people who have reached maturity and have committed no sin? Do they stay dead?

[Leonard James]

As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.

What about people who have reached maturity and have committed no sin? Do they stay dead?

Until some evidence is produced to the contrary, it is only logical assume that any form of life stays dead after it has died.

There is an infinity of things we could claim happens to them after death, but without supporting evidence all are equally possible.

[Gordon]

As the resurrection story has not one iota of credibility, as truly dead people don't come to life again, it was fabricated imo, and is not comparable with the moon landings for which there appears to be verifiable evidence.

What about people who have reached maturity and have committed no sin? Do they stay dead?

Once clinically brain dead they do (irrespective of 'sin', whatever that is) - no exceptions, as your local undertaker will confirm.

[Hope]

Anyway we have all done wrong things in our lives, no one is perfect!

That's one move in the right direction in your understanding, Floo 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Declare victory? You mean like your shameful assertion that you had proved moral non realism/subjective morality a few weeks back.

Just making shit up and throwing it at the person who's found you out as a diversionary tactic isn't helping you I'm afraid. (I wonder if I can get the tactic entered into an urban dictionary as a new term though - "Vladism" does have a ring to it.)

You know and I know that your position is not supported by 'The methodology' any more than mine is.

Flat wrong, for the reasons I've set out for you already.

You see that as a defeat which is why you cannot stand to 'own it'

Yes it is a "defeat" - yours. You've had your arse handed to you in a sling - again. Either finally attempt to address that, or stop already with the dummy spitting.

Unlike you I don't see aspects of the cosmos 'failing' the methodology.

Presumably that meant something in your head when you typed it?

It is the methodology which is limited.

Of course it is. Naturalism only ever claims to provide provisional truths, and is indifferent to any "might bes" beyond its purview. That's why your straw man version of it is misguided/dishonest. That though does not mean that it produces outcomes of equal epistemic value to your guesses.

POMA is just a shoe in for the philosophical contradiction of wanting to be considered a logical positivist but wanting the rest as well.

Being a logical positivist manqué is a sorry state to find oneself in, i would have thought.

Contrary to the bollocks narrative you and others have weaved, I and others are both adherents of science and religion.

That's nice for you. For the latter, provided you accept that it'll provide you only with personal, subjective truths - just as the superstitions of others about anything else do for them too - and not objective truths for the rest of us, there's no problem. Knock yourself out. If ever though you want to assert into existence some objective truth derived from it, then you have all your work ahead of you finally to explain how whatever pops into your head (or that you "intuit" if your really want to gussy it up with a fancier term) bridges the gap from the subjective to the objective.

Given your further ducking and diving, here's your scam set out for you again to address:

1. Realise that, despite countless requests for it, you have no method to distinguish the thing you think you intuit from mistake, delusion, false attribution etc.

2. Rather than address that, lay waste instead to any method of establishing probable truths in the hope that the relativism of, “OK, I’m guessing but so are you” will somehow help you.

3. To achieve Step 2, misdescribe naturalism as the conviction that the natural is all there ever could be, then keep attacking that straw man.

4. Wait until everyone else gives up in frustration at your dishonesty, evasion and obtuseness.

5. Declare victory.

You never will address it I know, but hey - call ma a cock-eyed optimist if you like but just maybe one day you'll have the honesty at least to give it a try. As before, if not then there's nothing more to say really.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

No, not a logical fallacy anything, bhs.

Yes it is. It would help if you understood what logical fallacies are - there are plenty of lists of them online if you look - so that you could recognise when you and others are using them.

For example: 

I am nigh on 60 and over those 6 decades I have had experiences that naturalism has no explanations for and, in my view, will never have explanations for.  Therefore, for me to assume that naturalistic science can and will provide the answers to every question to do with 'life, the universe and everything' is illogical.  The only logical process is therefore to assume that there is some part of reality that is not within the parameters that define naturalism.  After all, that is all anyone is doing as far as naturalism as the sole arbiter is concerned.

Rests on (at least) three logical fallacies. Do you want to have a go at working out what they are?

Incidentally, it's also a logical fallacy to argue that a conclusion is necessarily wrong because the arguments for it are fallacious (called the argument from fallacy). For all I know your pick of the gods, any other gods, unicorns, whatever might be real. That doesn't change though that fact that the only arguments you have are fallacious.

We've been through this process before, bhs- though I can't recall the exact thread but it was earlier this year.  Oddly enough, none of the naturalistic options came near to standing up to criticism.

I wonder whether you've invented a brand new informal fallacy of claiming a prior proof but never being able to produce it - Hopeism perhaps?

What criticism do you think there was, and why do you think that none of the myriad possible natural explanations stood up to it? How on earth would you propose to rule them out, except that it unless you resort to yet another fallacy - the argument from personal incredulity?

[Outrider]

What's "non-naturalistic evidence" and how do you come to know of it?

Well, it's evidence that by its nature may be unrepeatable - after all how can one have a 'once-for-all people' event being repeatable.

How does one gets to know about it?  Through documentation.

Documentation relies on eye-witness accounts, human perception and human memory, all of which are demonstrably unreliable.

If you compound that with documentation created in distant isolation from the events in question you have even more opportunities for those system failures to manifest.

Documentation of personal accounts is, of course, evidence, but it is far from a methodology. Accounts bereft of corroboration from individuals who weren't at the events being alleged that are created decades after the events in question are not a reliable form of evidence.

O.

[Hope]

If you compound that with documentation created in distant isolation from the events in question you have even more opportunities for those system failures to manifest.

If we were talking about a highly-literate context as we have in the 21st century West, I'd agree with you, but since we are talking about a context that was more reliant on oral transmission of information - and which has been shown to be remarkably efficient - I would have to disagree with your assertion.

Documentation of personal accounts is, of course, evidence, but it is far from a methodology. Accounts bereft of corroboration from individuals who weren't at the events being alleged that are created decades after the events in question are not a reliable form of evidence.

See above.  Studies over the years have shown that cultures that are as reliant on the oral tradition as 1st Century Palestine probably was, were able - by means of a variety of devices: mnemonics, parable, allegory, etc. - can pass a single message uncorrupted down a chain for several decades, if not centuries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_tradition

Interestingly, this means that in almost every other area of history, oral tradition is almost as widely accepted as is literary tradition.

[Hope]

Rests on (at least) three logical fallacies. Do you want to have a go at working out what they are?

The first would be that it doesn't fit your logical framework, so can't, by definition, be logical.  The second would be that it rather destroys your own neat logical framework.  Not sure about the 3rd. 

We've been through this process before, bhs- though I can't recall the exact thread but it was earlier this year.  Oddly enough, none of the naturalistic options came near to standing up to criticism.

Sorry to disappoint you, but we had a thread back in the spring/early summer on which a number of naturalistic explanations were posited by those who regard the 'supernatural' explanations to be flawed.  People like Jim, Alien, and a number of others proceeded to knock them over fairly straightforwardly.  As I said, I can't recall the thread title in order to be able to point you towards it.

Done a bit of 'searching'.  Whilst I haven't had time to read the whole first 10-12 pages of Thrud's 'Have you tried reading the NT in the right order' thread, I think that might be the thread I had in mind - though I'd forgotten it was that recent.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

If we were talking about a highly-literate context as we have in the 21st century West, I'd agree with you, but since we are talking about a context that was more reliant on oral transmission of information - and which has been shown to be remarkably efficient - I would have to disagree with your assertion....etc

It's "been shown" to be no such thing. Just the opposite in fact.

Have you ever heard of the party game of Chinese whispers? What do you think it tells you about the unreliability of oral transmission even in a small group in one room over a very short period of time?

Just out of interest, are you as sanguine about the accuracy of the countless oral transmissions of other faiths around the world about their miracle stories, or do you just plead specially for the story you happen as an article of faith to think to be true?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

The first would be that it doesn't fit your logical framework, so can't, by definition, be logical..

It's not "my" logical framework at all. Logical fallacies are logical fallacies, regardless of who uses them. That you commit them routinely doesn't change that.

The second would be that it rather destroys your own neat logical framework.

No it doesn't. You posted an argument that consisted of three logical fallacies - how do you think that to have "destroyed" anything?

Not sure about the 3rd. 

You have no idea about any of them - that's the problem Do you want to have another go, or shall I explain them to you?

Sorry to disappoint you, but we had a thread back in the spring/early summer on which a number of naturalistic explanations were posited by those who regard the 'supernatural' explanations to be flawed.  People like Jim, Alien, and a number of others proceeded to knock them over fairly straightforwardly.  As I said, I can't recall the thread title in order to be able to point you towards it.

The only way they could have tried to "knock them over" at this distance would have been by committing yet another fallacy - the argument from personal incredulity. Even then they'd have had all their work ahead of them to explain why an explanation entirely at odds with everything we know about the way the Universe works is more likely than the myriad possible natural causes. 

Done a bit of 'searching'.  Whilst I haven't had time to read the whole first 10-12 pages of Thrud's 'Have you tried reading the NT in the right order' thread, I think that might be the thread I had in mind - though I'd forgotten it was that recent.

See above.

So now we know that the known and possible natural causes cannot have been "knocked over" at all, can I assume that your rhetorical cupboard is bare?

[Nearly Sane]

The problems with oral tradition is that it is not a claim to the original tradition being any more accurate. Rather it is about possible distortion being minimised by specific techniques. Further it is no guarantee that those techniques are used for the transmission.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

The problems with oral tradition is that it is not a claim to the original tradition being any more accurate. Rather it is about possible distortion being minimised by specific techniques. Further it is no guarantee that those techniques are used for the transmission.

Quite. Even if person A's mistaken belief that the lady in the box was sawn in half and then restored was to be relayed faithfully many times afterwards, that says nothing to the accuracy or otherwise of person A's interpretation of events.

[Brownie]

I just read the op and am replying to that.  I have experienced speaking in tongues and singing in tongues, the latter was lovely.  I suppose I entered into the spirit of the thing at the time but it is definitely an emotional business, the correct term being "glossolalia".  People who consider themselves to be 'slain in the spirit' are perfectly capable of stopping the speaking in tongues, just as those who are under hypnosis can stop and walk away at any time.  None of it really works.

Nothing wrong with it as long as everyone is happy.  I'm not sure I agree with children being presented with people speaking in tongues, could be scary, but for adults it is up to them.

Being prayed over with tongues is not pleasant, rather freaky in fact.

It's OK to pray privately and silently in tongues, if that is your wont.  Sometimes things cannot be put into words that everyone understands.

[Hope]

It's OK to pray privately and silently in tongues, if that is your wont.  Sometimes things cannot be put into words that everyone understands.

Interestingly, that is what Paul and other NT writers generally regard tongues for - private prayer and worship.  However, I have no problems with people praying - as a part of a group all worshipping - in tongues.

The best example I've experienced was when I actually interpreted/translated the words that were said in tongues.  It was very simple really.  This particular person - who has never claimed to have been able to speak anything other than English - spoke in a language that was clearly wasn't English - or Welsh, but as I listened I could understand it perfectly - it was basic Nepali!!  We had only arrived home from Nepal 3 weeks earlier!!

[jeremyp]

If we were talking about a highly-literate context as we have in the 21st century West, I'd agree with you, but since we are talking about a context that was more reliant on oral transmission of information - and which has been shown to be remarkably efficient

This is absolutely not the case.  We can see just by the way the gospels were modified from one to the next that early Christians didn't place too much store in perfect oral transmission.

Plus the Christians of Paul's period placed more emphasis on knowledge obtained by revelation than on stories of actual events.

Interestingly, this means that in almost every other area of history, oral tradition is almost as widely accepted as is literary tradition.

What oral tradition have you got from first century Palestine?

[Hope]

This is absolutely not the case.  We can see just by the way the gospels were modified from one to the next that early Christians didn't place too much store in perfect oral transmission.

In what way(s) were the gospels 'modified from one to the next', jeremy?  Are you suggesting that, because The Times and The BBC 'modify' a given story to match their respective audiences (often adding different cultural and historical references to make for easier understanding, or incuding different, but legitimate details), neither report is reliable?

Plus the Christians of Paul's period placed more emphasis on knowledge obtained by revelation than on stories of actual events.

Do you have any evidence to support this assertion?

What oral tradition have you got from first century Palestine?

We know that, for the first 10 or so years of the faith, little or nothing was written down, everything being transmitted orally.  Even the New Testament documents acknowledge that.  Then, possibly as early as 45 AD, Paul wrote Galations in which he summarised the tenets of the faith.  Over the next 50 years, the oral transmisson of the faith occurred in tandem with the development of the written records (of the 26 documents within the New Testamant as we have it now, there are none whose earliest, widely accepted date of composition is more than 60 years after the events, only 4 have a earliest date of composition more than 40 years after the events and 17 have an earliest date of composition within 30 years of the events).

[Leonard James]

We know that, for the first 10 or so years of the faith, little or nothing was written down, everything being transmitted orally.

Good grief! Ten years of oral transmission is the last thing that should inspire any faith!

[Hope]

Good grief! Ten years of oral transmission is the last thing that should inspire any faith!

Why, Len?  Is it because you, who have lived your whole life in a highly literate society and therefore do not have the devices that cultures that rely on the oral tradition use to remember things for longer than a few weeks, believe that what you are used to is the only form of information transmission?  Could it be that, having never had to rely on the oral transmission of long and detailed information you don't actually know how it works?

[Hope]

Have you ever heard of the party game of Chinese whispers? What do you think it tells you about the unreliability of oral transmission even in a small group in one room over a very short period of time?

And do you know the history of the game's name? It has nothing to do with 'the unreliability of oral transmission even in a small group in one room over a very short period of time'.  Rather it has to do with the unreliability of oral tradition between people of different mother tongues - originally the interaction between Europeans and the Chinese in the 1600s.

Historians trace Westerners' use of the word Chinese to denote "confusion" and "incomprehensibility" to the earliest contacts between Europeans and Chinese people in the 1600s, and attribute it to Europeans' inability to understand China's culture and worldview. Using the phrase "Chinese whispers" suggested a belief that the Chinese language itself is not understandable. The more fundamental metonymic use of the name of a foreign language to represent a broader class of situations involving foreign languages or difficulty of understanding a language is also captured in older idioms such as It's all Greek to me!.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_whispers

Historically, it has absolutely no connection to an out of context message, passed down by a group of individuals (often young children with little or no experience of life) brought up in a literate society in a game situation - and therefore largely devoid of the knowledge of oral devices used to retain the structure and word order of a far longer piece of transmitted information.  Read Walter Ong's 'Orality and Literacy' 1982.  See here for a summary - http://bit.ly/1Mr8bQi

Just out of interest, are you as sanguine about the accuracy of the countless oral transmissions of other faiths around the world about their miracle stories, or do you just plead specially for the story you happen as an article of faith to think to be true?

I am perfectly happy to accept said oral transmissons as valid transmissions.  That is very different to believing that they are true since there is absolutely no historical evidence for the majority of said stories.  I choose to accept the Judeo-Christian ones because there is sufficient historical evidence to corroborate large chunks of the underlying information, even if some of the details are - by definition - unlikely to leave archeological footprints.

[Leonard James]

Good grief! Ten years of oral transmission is the last thing that should inspire any faith!

Why, Len?  Is it because you, who have lived your whole life in a highly literate society and therefore do not have the devices that cultures that rely on the oral tradition use to remember things for longer than a few weeks, believe that what you are used to is the only form of information transmission?  Could it be that, having never had to rely on the oral transmission of long and detailed information you don't actually know how it works?

Tell me about these devices that enable a person to remember verbatim what he has been told. As an oldie, I would very much welcome such a thing.