Spirituality

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My approach is this. Given the issues around induction, what would an atheist make of a resurrection?

Same as anyone else's capable of reason – that there were no solid grounds for thinking it was a resurrection rather than something else.

Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?, An offence against his philosophical scientism, naturalism, empiricism? If he does accept it has happened, what does he attribute it to? Aliens? Time travellers? Random event?

An explanation that he hasn’t thought of? A phenomenon as yet undiscovered? What would a Norse person "experiencing" Thor do? “Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?, An offence against his philosophical scientism, naturalism, empiricism? If he does accept it has happened, what does he attribute it to? Aliens? Time travellers? Random event?”

Oh wait though – maybe his explanation “Thor” for the phenomena he’d witnessed was just wrong to begin with eh? You know, like “it’s a resurrection” could be.     

You see even though he has evidence of the event or the phenomena, it doesn't falsify aliens, or randomness, or God.......so we are back to empirical means not being able to falsify God ....and your unreasonableness in expecting empirical evidence for God.

You see, all he actually has evidence for is an experience. He has no evidence though for it actually being a resurrection rather than something else. Once again you confuse an experience of something with an explanation for it.

Short version: your “approach” is a crock. 

PS

Oh, and yet again:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

[Enki]

OK but my first reactions are that these are pretty peripheral.

That's up to you. Not my take on it, considering there are far more ridiculous and often darkly unpleasant instances which are not even alleviated by being humorous.

As far as I know the Royal Institution wasn't a thing in the days when these were written so whether the term quaint attempts at science is valid and not just a dirty, stinking patronising attitude.....

I'll stick by my definition of 'quaint'(attractively unusual or old-fashioned) thank you, rather than yours.

But surely evidence of the intervention is evidence of an intervention rather than what intervenes isn't it. My approach is this. Given the issues around induction, what would an atheist make of a resurrection? Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?, An offence against his philosophical scientism, naturalism, empiricism? If he does accept it has happened, what does he attribute it to? Aliens? Time travellers? Random event? You see even though he has evidence of the event or the phenomena, it doesn't falsify aliens, or randomness, or God.......so we are back to empirical means not being able to falsify God ....and your unreasonableness in expecting empirical evidence for God.

(groans) What do you hope to achieve with  your strawman? As I have already stated, evidence wouldn't falsify or confirm the existence of a god, but it would to some extent support the idea as a feasible possibility. After all, even according to the Gospels, there were many converts who witnessed a range of miracles, such that they believed Jesus had powers which came from God(or himself depending upon which interpretation one wishes to take). As it is, there is no such evidence, and as I have no other reason to believe that God exists, I remain an atheist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ipster,

Wriggling again Vlad?

Like a worm on a hook. He's this mb's version of Monty Python's Black Knight. 'tis but a scratch!:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmInkxbvlCs

[Outrider]

Sorry for not replying sooner I am not talking about wrongness I am talking about being mainstream.

You were talking about people's faith being 'orthodox'.

Gay people get ostracised and worse by people who are not christian.

And by people who are.  Both need to be addressed, yes, we're talking about the Christian group.

I will admit that mention in scripture has undoubtably led to a position where homosexual acts are viewed as sinful but the church should recognise that it is a community of sinners and thus even if one believes it is a sin one shouldn't be a going about ostricising.

The Church, though, is the body of Christianity, it's not just the leadership, and because religion, and monotheistic religion in particular, lends itself to authoritarianism it's a small step from 'it's sinful' to 'we should prohibit/shun it'.  Given that it's intrinsic to the nature of religion to be authoritarian, how do you propose to stop that drift?

There is as I understand an active Gay christian community.

There are working class Tories, there are immigrant Brexiteers, there have always been turkeys that will vote for Christmas.

People for whom the christian issue and thegay issue is not a dealbreaker.

Then all they need to deal with is the institutional misogyny, the inherent authoritarianism, the Christian supremacists... the same as the rest of us do.

If you are alluding to the american church then i'm afraid the obvious aspect of that wing is about to come under it's own period of judgment for dabbling in politics.

Dabbling in politics seems to be the eventual activity of pretty much every organised religion - Roman Catholicism's papacies of the middle-ages and Renaissance were famed for it, Welby regularly ventures forth on topics of the day, the links between Putin's regime and the Russian Orthodox Church are well-established, the Hindu Nationalist movement in India right now...

Of course everyone is entitled to ask what christianity is. What is less savoury is what I suspect you of, of treating the whole thing as a kind of mid 20th century social science which never actually consider the opinions of the subjects.

I'm here, I listen, but it seems like they don't say very much of substance.  It's still a foundation of nothing, wish fulfillment, confirmation bias and a raft of fallacies from 'no true Scotsman' to rank 'whataboutery'.  At the end of the day, I'm making the point that, far from not listening to Christians, Christianity is the sum of the opinions and actions of all Christians that derives from their belief; you appear to be the one  who thinks they have an inside line into 'true' Christianity and can suggest that some Christians don't count because they're doing in wrong in the absence of any independent metric that could be used to judge.

O.

[Gordon]

Given the issues around induction, what would an atheist make of a resurrection? Does he dismiss it straight off as a fault in his own faculties?

My first reaction would be, given the nature of the claim, to ask the claimant to demonstrate how they excluded the risks of bias, mistakes or lies in the anecdotal accounts of the claimed resurrection: if they can't satisfactorily do that then they would need to propose some method of investigation that is independent of the risks of human artifice - if they can't do either then it seems to me their claim just isn't a serious proposition as things stand and can indeed be dismissed.

The burden of proof is on the claimant here (in this case of a resurrection), and if they can't satisfy reasonable demands to exclude known risks (bias, mistakes or lies) and/or propose a method that is suitable for checking out the details of the claim then it seems to me that their claim is, essentially, a worthless one no matter how much it appeals to them on a personal basis.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

My first reaction would be, given the nature of the claim

Sorry My fault, the context is that the atheist is the witness, I'm afraid that makes this:

, to ask the claimant to demonstrate how they excluded the risks of bias, mistakes or lies in the anecdotal accounts of the claimed resurrection: if they can't satisfactorily do that then they would need to propose some method of investigation that is independent of the risks of human artifice - if they can't do either then it seems to me their claim just isn't a serious proposition as things stand and can indeed be dismissed.

The burden of proof is on the claimant here (in this case of a resurrection), and if they can't satisfy reasonable demands to exclude known risks (bias, mistakes or lies) and/or propose a method that is suitable for checking out the details of the claim then it seems to me that their claim is, essentially, a worthless one no matter how much it appeals to them on a personal basis.

Redundant and irrelevant.....once again I can only offer my apologies and maybe advise you to read before you respond.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Redundant and irrelevant.....once again I can only offer my apologies and maybe advise you to read before you respond.

Still plugging the same wrongness then eh? What someone witnesses and the explanation for it are different things. If I witness a comely young lady on a stage being sawn in two and then reconnected is that therefore what actually happened?

Oh, by the way…

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

[Gordon]

Sorry My fault, the context is that the atheist is the witness,

I see: so your post is really no more than a straw man portrayal of how you think an atheist would react. Perhaps you could clarify whether this atheist witness is active in current times or in antiquity in the Middle East at the time of the claimed resurrection, since clearly there would be differences both culturally and in terms of knowledge in general. I thinking this attempt of yours at a thought experiment hasn't perhaps been thought through enough.
 

I'm afraid that makes this: Redundant and irrelevant.....once again I can only offer my apologies and maybe advise you to read before you respond.

I did, Vlad: but then your ramblings aren't always examples of clarity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Still plugging the same wrongness then eh? What someone witnesses and the explanation for it are different things. If I witness a comely young lady on a stage being sawn in two and then reconnected is that therefore what actually happened?

Oh, by the way…

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

My point was even though you can witness a miracle there is only ever empirical evidence for that event not necessarily the explanation for it. That is it....Now if you or Gordon had read what I put maybe you wouldn't be introducing these deviations...But then again....as it's you....

You are jumping the gun of presupposing the events are an illusion.

You remind me of someone trying to save his sand castles from the tide.

[Roses]

I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for  so called 'miracles'.

[Gordon]

My point was even though you can witness a miracle there is only ever empirical evidence for that event not necessarily the explanation for it.

So, and to avoid misunderstanding you, you are saying that if I were to think I had witnessed a miracle there would be empirical evidence that confirmed a miracle event occurred but that the explanation for it may be different from the empirical evidence?

That does seem rather confused to me: perhaps you could explain what empirical evidence for the claimed miraculous resurrection of Jesus would look like and why, presuming there was empirical evidence that stood scrutiny, an alternative explanation would be required at all (after we'd have the empirical evidence).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I see: so your post is really no more than a straw man portrayal of how you think an atheist would react.

I give a range of possible reactions.What do you think I missed out? Careful now you might have to Read what I put to answer it.

Perhaps you could clarify whether this atheist witness is active in current times or in antiquity in the Middle East at the time of the claimed resurrection, since clearly there would be differences both culturally and in terms of knowledge in general.

Well let's say it's you Gordon. Now I know you are a big ''impossible'' merchant (Thus ignoring everything you've been told about the problems of induction.. But suppose you had seen somebody pronounced dead and had used your training and any specialised equipment to confirm it....and then later the victim was alive? What is your next move?[/quote] I thinking this attempt of yours at a thought experiment hasn't perhaps been thought through enough.

I tend to leave that sort of thing to you guys.

[Gordon]

Well let's say it's you Gordon. Now I know you are a big ''impossible'' merchant (Thus ignoring everything you've been told about the problems of induction.. But suppose you had seen somebody pronounced dead and had used your training and any specialised equipment to confirm it....and then later the victim was alive? What is your next move?

I'd get someone qualified to check the equipment and then get other qualified opinions on my actions and conclusions: after all I could be simply wrong, or I could be attempting to mislead, or I could have been misled. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, and to avoid misunderstanding you, you are saying that if I were to think I had witnessed a miracle there would be empirical evidence that confirmed a miracle event occurred but that the explanation for it may be different from the empirical evidence?

No what I am saying is if there is any empirical evidence of a miracle it would not necessarily constitute evidence for that miracle's explanation.

That does seem rather confused to me: perhaps you could explain what empirical evidence for the claimed miraculous resurrection of Jesus

I have noticed that some of my arguments do not conform to your experience or expectations and have always looked on that as your problem. However, to the business in hand. A post mortem report confirming the death, video evidence or their first century equivalents followed by evidence of a subsequent live appearance. My point though is that even were this available it would not constitute empirical evidence for God and that to expect such empirical evidence is therefore unreasonable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd get someone qualified to check the equipment and then get other qualified opinions on my actions and conclusions: after all I could be simply wrong, or I could be attempting to mislead, or I could have been misled.

Well thanks for warning us that you pose a danger of misleading us, however, I don't think you would. So, given that it isn't in you to mislead....what are you going to say?
And if these other people verified it, what would happen then? ?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

My point was even though you can witness a miracle there is only ever empirical evidence for that event not necessarily the explanation for it. That is it....Now if you or Gordon had read what I put maybe you wouldn't be introducing these deviations...But then again....as it's you....

It's an entirely vapid point though because there’d be no way to know that you have experienced a miracle rather than something else. Even to be in that game you’d have to demonstrate first an entire ontology for a “supernatural” in which miracles could occur. 

You are jumping the gun of presupposing the events are an illusion.

Ooh, a triple straw man in one sentence. Good effort.

1. I didn’t “presuppose” it all, I just said there’d be no way to exclude the possibility of a non-miraculous (though doubtless less thrilling) explanation.

2. Again, you confuse “the events” with possible explanation for them.

3. No-one said “illusion” – “mistaken attribution of casue” is fine. You know, like Thor would be for thunder.

Apart from that though..   

You remind me of someone trying to save his sand castles from the tide.

Except the “tide” is your lies and dull misunderstandings and the sand castles are actually nice hard pebbles, which is why you keep avoiding them.

Oh, and by the way…

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

It's an entirely vapid point though because there’d be no way to know that you have experienced a miracle rather than something else. Even to be in that game you’d have to demonstrate first an entire ontology for a “supernatural” in which miracles could occur. 

Ooh, a triple straw man in one sentence. Good effort.

1. I didn’t “presuppose” it all, I just said there’d be no way to exclude the possibility of a non-miraculous (though les thrilling) explanation.

2. Again, you confuse “the events” with possible explanation for them.

3. No-one said “illusion” – “mistaken attribution of casue” is fine. You know, like Thor would be for thunder.

Apart from that though..   

Except the “tide” is your lies and dull misunderstandings, and the sand castles are actually nice hard pebbles, which is why you keep avoiding them.

Oh, and by the way…

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

I'm fondly remember the old AOL spirituality message board, there used to be a chap on that when he was serious would use a shade of brown. It became a bit of an in joke where getting serious was referred to as ''Using shit brown'' how we laughed...happy days...but now it has come to religionethics, sigh.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I am of the opinion there is a natural explanation for  so called 'miracles'.

Really? I think that is calling for repeatability in something intrinsically unrepeated.

[Gordon]

Well thanks for warning us that you pose a danger of misleading us, however, I don't think you would. So, given that it isn't in you to mislead....what are you going to say?
And if these other people verified it, what would happen then? ?

How do you know it isn't in me to mislead? Are you saying that I would be incapable of telling lies if I thought it would advance a cause that was dear to me? I think you would be foolish to simply believe me because you thought I was honest when what I was asking you to believe was so remarkable.

Then there is the issue of how the claim was being verified, since given the risks that I am incompetent and/or nefarious then others might be too, so the verification method would have to be robust enough not to be unduly influenced by interested parties. So clearly a detailed method that excluded the risks of bias, mistakes or lies would be needed that was specifically suited to the capture and analysis of any data that would be sufficient to provisionally confirm that a miracle had indeed occurred.

If I was claiming the miracle then the burden of proof would be mine, and those considering my claim would quite reasonably expect me to explain the justifications for my claim, such as a basis for verification that was independent of my, or others, subjective assurances that a miracle had happened.

I'd say that resurrection of Jesus proponents have this burden, whether they like it or not, and if they can't exclude risks or explain a basis for verifying their claims - and especially if their claims descend into a fallacy-fest - then I'm quite entitled to dismiss their claim until such times as they can provide justification that stands scrutiny. Of course it is impossible for them to meet this challenge, which is why their belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a faith claim and not a factual one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I'm fondly remember the old AOL spirituality message board, there used to be a chap on that when he was serious would use a shade of brown. It became a bit of an in joke where getting serious was referred to as ''Using shit brown'' how we laughed...happy days...but now it has come to religionethics, sigh.

Your continued ducking and diving is noted. Other colours are available though, here for example:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

Why not try at least to answer rather than keep running away? What's stopping you?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How do you know it isn't in me to mislead?

I admit I am less certain that you would not mislead others than you would mislead yourself so we are back to the scenario you having witnessed this and having the evidence

having witnessed this Are you saying that I would be incapable of telling lies if I thought it would advance a cause that was dear to me?

This is the million dollar question isn't it. As a hard bitten non supernaturalist who is noted for introducing the concept of impossibility to resurrection what do you do now? Bury the evidence, retire, Bring your evidence to the world? Bring the evidence in front of yourself?, worry about what your friends on religionethics will say? Worry whether your family will disown you?

I think you would be foolish to simply believe me because you thought I was honest when what I was asking you to believe was so remarkable.

Well such a turn around from a public and vocal atheist such as yourself WOULD BE REMARKABLE.

If I was claiming the miracle then the burden of proof would be mine, and those considering my claim would quite reasonably expect me to explain the justifications for my claim, such as a basis for verification that was independent of my, or others, subjective assurances that a miracle had happened.

Nobody would expect otherwise, however I think you may be underestimating the ripple that someone like yourself changing position would constitute.

However we have strayed from my point that even if you had empirical evidence of a resurrection it would merely be evidence of a resurrection and not of the cause.

I'd say that resurrection of Jesus proponents have this burden, whether they like it or not, and if they can't exclude risks or explain a basis for verifying their claims - and especially if their claims descend into a fallacy-fest - then I'm quite entitled to dismiss their claim until such times as they can provide justification that stands scrutiny. Of course it is impossible for them to meet this challenge, which is why their belief in the resurrection of Jesus is a faith claim and not a factual one.

Anybody who proposes a history has a duty IMV to evidence or give grounds to it.
And by introducing a history of dishonesty, mistake and misleading you need to show that it actually happened. The evidence is there that people witnessed this. For us to say they were wrong it is necessary to show where this happened. Belief in Christ tallies with what is a history but belief, as you have, in terms of the impossibility also denies it happened and in doing so creates another alternative historical account which needs demonstrating. To then offer anything less is lack of self respect.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Your continued ducking and diving is noted. Other colours are available though, here for example:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

Why not try at least to answer rather than keep running away? What's stopping you?

Given the number of times this has appeared....worse piece of attention seeking i've seen in a long time.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Given the number of times this has appeared....worse piece of attention seeking i've seen in a long time.

Your (yet further) continued ducking and diving is noted. Other colours are available though, here for example:

IF YOUR COMPLAINT ABOUT AN EMPIRICAL METHOD IS THAT IT CANNOT BE USED TO INVESTIGATE AND VERIFY CLAIMS OF A NON-MATERIAL “GOD”, WHAT METHOD WOULD YOU PROPOSE SHOULD BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE INSTEAD?

Why not try at least to answer rather than keep running away? What's stopping you?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

As a hard bitten non supernaturalist who is noted for introducing the concept of impossibility to resurrection what do you do now?

Can you tell us where he said such a thing is "impossible", or is this yet another example of you lying about someone's actual position?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Can you tell us where he said such a thing is "impossible", or is this yet another example of you lying about someone's actual position?

Hillside. There are other posters I wish to discuss with, therefore it is extremely unreasonable for you to be howling baby like for me to 'burp' you.
If you open a thread on this issue I will gladly discuss the matter there.