Spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'd say one default is, to borrow from Carl Sagan, that "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" - and that anecdotal accounts in the NT that date from antiquity for which the risks of bias, mistakes and lies can't seemingly be excluded are insufficient to justify the miracles claims made in the NT.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What type of extraordinary evidence? What are we looking at or for here?

Bias can't be excluded? what bias are we talking about? Mistakes? What mistakes are we talking about? Where might the lies come in?

Have you actually looked at the epistles? or the New testament? If you have then surely you can answer my questions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea: but these are known risks when it comes to anecdotal accounts, and I'd have thought an essential step for you guys to take would be to exclude these risks in the source used for your claim.''

If you aren't prepared to check this out then you can't be surprised if others, like me, have doubts about the veracity of the source you are dependent on.

So the story goes, but there is a difference between someone claiming there were 500 witnesses and that there were actually 500 witnesses - is it possible they were exaggerating or lying? Have you checked? Have you got the CCTV so we can count the numbers (and also check that the CCTV output hasn't been altered), have you got signed testimony from each?

What they believed, however sincerely, is not and indicator that these beliefs are correct: this is a critical difference, unless you're inclined to believe them as a matter of personal faith.

How do you know this, since to be confident in their conclusions you'd have to know that they saw the need for due diligence, especially given the nature of the miracle claim, and then establish how they did their due diligence - have you checked?

Underlying all of this is special pleading: that early Christians, church fathers, disciples (or whatever other labels apply) were somehow immune from the risks of bias, making mistakes or telling lies - if so, how would you justify this without using fallacious arguments from authority/tradition, and if you accept that they were as fallible as the rest of us then you'd, presumably, be prepared to concede that some content in the NT might not be historical fact.

Yep - it is for you to show it to be reliable and, in doing so, explain how you've concluded that the risks of bias, mistake or lies are negligible and also explain why the NT stories are sufficient to conclude that miracles did indeed happen. Unless you can do that I am quite entitled to simply note that those using the NT to support miracle claims seem not to have taken account of the risks associated with accounts attributed to people, and come to the view that since it is indistinguishable from fiction I have no need to take it seriously.

Or you could just say 'it is a matter of personal faith and not historical fact', and stop painting yourself into every available corner.

Until you look at the New testament for fear that it may contain Bias, Lies and Mistakes you are going to make your judgments out of what you believe rather than the evidence before you. If you have read the evidence then your statement that you have no idea where Mistakes, lies and bias creep in is not credible, oh you have.

Now if you are saying that all ancient texts are not credible or reliable ditto maybe not credible or reliable it is encumbent on you to say why.  That is the price of making a positive assertion.

Now let me go through this again.

Bias. Where is the bias in a christian who has doubts about the resurrection?
        Where is the bias in somebody who suggests where such a person can investigate that which he doubts.

Which one is the liar in these two.

Somebody was lying about the death and resurrection. Well there is no reason why somebody in living memory would lie that there were 500 witnesses and hope toget away with it.

So you see Gordon I've covered the issues of Bias, Lying and Mistake.

If you reject the epistles then you are proposing that something else happened and your denial of doing so is not credible. If you insist you are not making a historical statement then you are basing your judgment on your personal beliefs.   

[Gordon]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What type of extraordinary evidence? What are we looking at or for here?

No idea: not my claim. What evidence could confirm a miracle is up to you guys to propose, and then the rest of us can critique your proposals.

Bias can't be excluded? what bias are we talking about? Mistakes? What mistakes are we talking about? Where might the lies come in?

No idea: I'm not dependent on using the NT to support any claim, but I do expect those who do use the NT in support of claims of miracles to be able to confirm that they have considered and assessed all the know risks involving anecdotal accounts.

Have you actually looked at the epistles? or the New testament? If you have then surely you can answer my questions.

Nope, not to any great extent since it doesn't greatly interest me on a personal basis. However, when used to support claims of miracles that others try to encourage me to take seriously, such as in the proselytising of organised Christianity, I think it reasonable to ask if and how they've checked the details - it seems they haven't, and probably can't for obvious reasons.

If only they'd stop claiming that miracles are historical facts and, instead, just say that their belief in miracles is simply a matter of their personal faith!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What type of extraordinary evidence? What are we looking at or for here?

Bias can't be excluded? what bias are we talking about? Mistakes? What mistakes are we talking about? Where might the lies come in?

Have you actually looked at the epistles? or the New testament? If you have then surely you can answer my questions.

So just to be clear, you’re asking how ancient texts about a supposed event that no-one though important enough to write down at the time, that happened when countless other miracle stories were thought credible, that have been multiply translated since then (generally by people with agendas to pursue), that rely on eye witness accounts (one of the most unreliable forms of evidence), that also reach for an explanatory narrative outwith all known observable phenomena, and that you arbitrarily choose to treat differently from all other such claims from all other faith traditions could be mistaken.

Well…     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No idea

If you are claiming cluelessness on your part I won't disagree.

[Gordon]

Until you look at the New testament for fear that it may contain Bias, Lies and Mistakes you are going to make your judgments out of what you believe rather than the evidence before you. If you have read the evidence then your statement that you have no idea where Mistakes, lies and bias creep in is not credible, oh you have.

Now if you are saying that all ancient texts are not credible or reliable ditto maybe not credible or reliable it is encumbent on you to say why.  That is the price of making a positive assertion.

Now let me go through this again.

Bias. Where is the bias in a christian who has doubts about the resurrection?
        Where is the bias in somebody who suggests where such a person can investigate that which he doubts.

Which one is the liar in these two.

Somebody was lying about the death and resurrection. Well there is no reason why somebody in living memory would lie that there were 500 witnesses and hope toget away with it.

So you see Gordon I've covered the issues of Bias, Lying and Mistake.

If you reject the epistles then you are proposing that something else happened and your denial of doing so is not credible. If you insist you are not making a historical statement then you are basing your judgment on your personal beliefs.

Nope: no point asking me if the NT contains bias, mistakes or lies. I have no personal interest in it and I make no claims based on it.

The burden of proof here is yours, but if you make claims of miracles based on the NT I'm entitled to ask how you checked it for bias, mistakes or lies. If you haven't, you won't or you can't, then you can't expect some of us without religious faith to take these fantastical tales seriously.

By the way, your flagrant special pleading on behalf of the NT is obvious.

[Gordon]

If you are claiming cluelessness on your part I won't disagree.

Not my problem, Vlad: remember the burden of proof is yours, and it seems you can't deliver.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

So just to be clear, you’re asking how ancient texts about a supposed event that no-one though important enough to write down at the time,

Evidence?

that happened when countless other miracle stories were thought credible,

Gordon and I discussed the question on whether that particular time was any more ultragullible than other to times. The epistles show an understanding that the events in Jesus ministry would be mainly regarded with incredulity. Gordon hasn't as far as I am aware played the first century gullibility card.

that have been multiply translated since then

Lists of bible translations and the conditions of their translation are available on Wikipedia

(generally by people with agendas to pursue)

That describes almost everyone on earth,

that rely on eye witness accounts (one of the most unreliable forms of evidence)

What are we talking about in this case?,

that also reach for an explanatory narrative outwith all known observable phenomena,

Philosophical empiricism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not my problem, Vlad: remember the burden of proof is yours, and it seems you can't deliver.

The evidence has been put before you. If you make judgment without inspection there isn't a lot that can be done.

[Gordon]

The evidence has been put before you. If you make judgment without inspection there isn't a lot that can be done.

Nope: ancient anecdotal tales, many with uncertain provenance, have been put before me and I can reasonably conclude that there is doubt regarding their veracity because of unassessed known risks involving anecdotal accounts. Given the content of these ancient anecdotes they are best disregarded as accurate history and are better viewed as being no more than just religious superstitions rooted in their time and culture.

I'll leave you to the limitations of your blind faith in fantastical anecdotes.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope: ancient anecdotal tales, many with uncertain provenance, have been put before me

And did you read them?

[Gordon]

And did you read them?

Once upon a time.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once upon a time.

So It's reasonable to expect you to have come to a judgment of what you read and unreasonable of you to say you haven't even though you read them.

If you read them then where are the lies, the bias and the mistakes?

[Gordon]

So It's reasonable to expect you to have come to a judgment of what you read and unreasonable of you to say you haven't even though you read them.

If you read them then where are the lies, the bias and the mistakes?

Nope: my judgement is that they are simply unbelievable as they stand because; a) they are ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance, b) they contain fantastical claims regarding which ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance are insufficient evidence, and c) there are unaddressed risks of bias, mistakes and lies that proponents of these anecdotes seem reluctant to consider without resorting to special pleading.

So, for the reasons noted above, I can just dismiss these tales meantime as being ancient religious superstitions and not serious history: your problem, and not mine, is to demonstrate otherwise since it seems you take these anecdotes seriously.

You do struggle with the concept of burden of proof.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope: my judgement is that they are simply unbelievable as they stand because; a) they are ancient anecdotes of uncertain provenance,

On what grounds do you make the judgment that their provenance is uncertain?

b) they contain fantastical claims

argument from incredulity?

So, for the reasons noted above, I can just dismiss these tales meantime as being ancient religious superstitions and not serious history
[/quote]
On what grounds do you make your assertion that these are total fictions and not serious history. Which components did not exist Jesus, Crucifixion, the Christian communities?

The epistles not being serious history is not a generally accepted view amongst academics. So we can probably dismiss your views on that.

[Gordon]

On what grounds do you make the judgment that their provenance is uncertain? b) they contain fantastical claimsargument from incredulity?

So, for the reasons noted above, I can just dismiss these tales meantime as being ancient religious superstitions and not serious history

On what grounds do you make your assertion that these are total fictions and not serious history. Which components did not exist Jesus, Crucifixion, the Christian communities?

The epistles not being serious history is not a generally accepted view amongst academics. So we can probably dismiss your views on that.

Good heavens, you do struggle: aside from a few Pauline letters the provenance of the NT is largely unknown, and that they contain fantastical claims, such as dead people not staying dead, people walking on water or thousands being fed from the equivalent of a loaf and a large packet of fish fingers, then I'd say you'd need a bit more than a few ancient anecdotes (that come with risks attached) before you could take such claims seriously.

I'm not saying they are "total fictions": I'm saying that until such times as the risks of bias, mistakes or lies are addressed, and miracle claims verified, and I doubt they can be, then the only reasonable position is to treat them as being indistinguishable from fiction until such times as there are grounds to treat them as being historical facts - and that is a problem for those who take the NT seriously, and not me.

You're flogging a dead horse here - why not just say that you have personal faith in what the NT claims and leave it at that, and then you wouldn't have to defend the indefensible? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

I saw a unicorn this morning. Do you doubt that?

Did you take any pictures of it?

OK, then I’m offering up the extra claim that that 500 other people saw it too.

Did any of these 500 take any pictures of it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good heavens, you do struggle: aside from a few Pauline letters the provenance of the NT is largely unknown, and that they contain fantastical claims, such as dead people not staying dead, people walking on water or thousands being fed from the equivalent of a loaf and a large packet of fish fingers, then I'd say you'd need a bit more than a few ancient anecdotes (that come with risks attached) before you could take such claims seriously.

I'm not saying they are "total fictions": I'm saying that until such times as the risks of bias, mistakes or lies are addressed, and miracle claims verified, and I doubt they can be, then the only reasonable position is to treat them as being indistinguishable from fiction until such times as there are grounds to treat them as being historical facts - and that is a problem for those who take the NT seriously, and not me.

So why did you use the word 'Tales' then if you aren't dismissing the stories as myth?
If it isn't a total myth and given that most of ancient history outside archeology is derived from anecdotal epistiolary material, what elements revealed in the epistles are you accepting as possible credible history? and which are you dismissing due to argument from incredulity?

[Gordon]

So why did you use the word 'Tales' then if you aren't dismissing the stories as myth?

I quite like the word: I've used 'stories' as well.

If it isn't a total myth and given that most of ancient history outside archeology is derived from anecdotal epistiolary material, what elements revealed in the epistles are you accepting as possible credible history?

Don't know, and I'm obviously not familiar with them: but since you raise them and, presumably, you know which bits you think are credible history then why don't you set out a list of what specific historical claims are made in each them and then we can go over them one by one.

If so, perhaps separate out routine stuff like 'so and so went to town x', which isn't a fantastical claim, and highlight where these epistles make presumptive claims that are fantastical (such as miracles).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Evidence?

That the first written account of  supposes resurrection didn’t happen until decades after the event?

“The earliest mention of the resurrection is in the Pauline epistles, which tradition dates from between 50 and 58 AD.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_resurrection_of_Jesus#:~:text=The%20earliest%20mention%20of%20the,between%2050%20and%2058%20AD.

Gordon and I discussed the question on whether that particular time was any more ultragullible than other to times. The epistles show an understanding that the events in Jesus ministry would be mainly regarded with incredulity. Gordon hasn't as far as I am aware played the first century gullibility card.

Miracle stories were widespread and commonplace, and can be found in pretty much any culture you choose to look at – ancient Egyptian, ancient Greek, ancient Chines, whatever. They’re also found in most religious traditions as well as the one you happen to favour more than the others:

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

Lists of bible translations and the conditions of their translation are available on Wikipedia

That doesn’t help you.

That describes almost everyone on earth,

Nor does that.

What are we talking about in this case?

Hearsay reports that long post-date supposed eye witness accounts. That’s a triple whammy of unreliability even before we get to the a priori problem of supernaturalism.

https://www.ncsc.org/trends/monthly-trends-articles/2017/the-trouble-with-eyewitness-identification-testimony-in-criminal-cases#:~:text=Research%20has%20found%20that%20eyewitness%2Didentification%20testimony%20can%20be%20very%20unreliable.&text=Although%20witnesses%20can%20often%20be,most%20unreliable%20forms%20of%20evidence

Philosophical empiricism?

Not even close.

Did you take any pictures of it?

Nope, it became non-material just as I was about to take one. You just have to take my word for it therefore

Did any of these 500 take any pictures of it?

Whoosh! The point is that, if you have one account of an event and that same account includes the claim that 500 other people saw it too you still have only one account – not 500.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

What exactly is the problem in accepting a possible purpose to life and the existence of an after-life?  There is significant anecdotal evidence for the after-life...which itself probably indicates a purpose too.

I understand that you people are disillusioned with religions, their mythology and many of their negative effects on society. No problem about that. But that should not become a mental block that prevents any kind of intelligent philosophical speculation.

Scientism should not be the only system to understand the world and our lives.  Merely saying that....'I don't see it' or 'Show it to me through any measurable means or an instrument'....are childish and unreasonable arguments.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

That the first written account of  supposes resurrection didn’t happen until decades after the event?

“The earliest mention of the resurrection is in the Pauline epistles, which tradition dates from between 50 and 58 AD.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_and_origin_of_the_resurrection_of_Jesus#:~:text=The%20earliest%20mention%20of%20the,between%2050%20and%2058%20AD.

Yes these documents were written within living memory and are about a past event. Their target audience are established communities which had grown up over time and distributed at multiple sites in Pax Romana. These communities develop from groups adherent to the events in question.

As with a lot of epistiolory, Christian and non Christian, we are only of course seeing what is extant. But that is a subsidiary point as to why something written at a later date can tell us about the past development of it’s context.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Hearsay reports that long post-date supposed eye witness accounts. That’s a triple whammy of unreliability even before we get to the a priori problem of supernaturalism.

Ah yes, I thought this was where your error lay. The report is an epistle by someone who claimed to have met the apostles who were still around incidentally to long established communities which are distributed. Therefore the witnesses are still around and the reports are not long post date as there are established communities based on those reports. Think of this as people in 2020 discussing a movement set in motion in 2000.

I'd be glad to discuss the supernatural elements of this but so far we are dealing with already established communities of believers in an event/s 20 years previous and that is true regardless of whether we believe in the supernatural elements.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



Nope, it became non-material just as I was about to take one. You just have to take my word for it therefore

That's too bad. Regarding taking your word for it that is rendered very difficult on account of you having an Essex post code.

Whoosh! The point is that, if you have one account of an event and that same account includes the claim that 500 other people saw it too you still have only one account – not 500.

Face palm. That's why I asked whether they had taken any photos.


You seem to be thinking that the Christianity of diverse and distributed groups two decades after the events is based on just one or two witnesses with a twenty year old story. When there were far more and the witnesses were still alive.

[Gordon]

Ah yes, I thought this was where your error lay. The report is an epistle by someone who claimed to have met the apostles who were still around incidentally to long established communities which are distributed. Therefore the witnesses are still around and the reports are not long post date as there are established communities based on those reports. Think of this as people in 2020 discussing a movement set in motion in 2000.

As you say, this epistle is a "claim", but have you considered whether or not the claimant could be biased, or mistaken, was being misled or was telling lies? Would you agree that, people being people, these risks are always pertinent when it comes to considering anecdotal accounts irrespective of time and place?

I'd be glad to discuss the supernatural elements of this but so far we are dealing with already established communities of believers in an event/s 20 years previous and that is true regardless of whether we believe in the supernatural elements.

That a group people might sincerely have believed a supernatural event involving Jesus occurred isn't being disputed - the uncertainty is whether or not their beliefs are sufficient to conclude that the supernatural event in question did actually occur: the difference is an important one, which is why the risks I keep reminding you of can't be easily dismissed.