Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Lying about people's supposed adherence to scientism when they've consistently told you they do no such thing won't dig you out of the hole you've made for yourself.

My rebuttals to your previous litany on nonsense, non sequiturs, fallacies etc are in my prior Reply to you. Doubtless you'll run away from those too though.

Oh well.

It is my fear, Hillside. On the other hand he could be on the brink of a new religion fit not only for this millenium but for aeons to come.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Me:

…My rebuttals to your previous litany on nonsense, non sequiturs, fallacies etc are in my prior Reply to you. Doubtless you'll run away from those too though.

You:

It is my fear, Hillside. On the other hand he could be on the brink of a new religion fit not only for this millenium but for aeons to come.

QED. Truly my powers of prophecy are beginning to astound even me now.

Maybe I’m god?

[Spud]

Unevidenced assertion and doubling implausible as there is no evidence whatsoever that angels exist.

Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment since women generally could not give evidence in Jewish law.

[BeRational]

Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment since women generally could not give evidence in Jewish law.

You are very  credulous and lack skepticism

[ProfessorDavey]

Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels.

All four gospels - you mean those documents purported to have been written decades after the event and where the early actual copies of the claim we have is likely from 150-200 years after the event. So a claim in a gospel (or even all four) is the flimsiest of evidence that what was claimed to have happened actually happened.

Add in that there is no credible evidence whatsoever that angels actually exist, so without the a priori evidence for the existence of angels any specific claim of angels is moot.

So what we are left with, even if we soften our criteria for credible eye witness evidence (which doesn't involve hearsay from hundreds of years later with no independent corroborative evidence) we are left with some people finding an empty tomb. There are all sorts of credible explanations for this, as I've stated early. The least credible is that a dead person suddenly came alive again.

[ProfessorDavey]

You are very  credulous and lack skepticism

Indeed he is.

But I suspect he'd be less credulous and skeptical about similarly fantastical claims not associated with his religion. For example Icarus and Daedalus and their (literal) flight from Crete.

But religion people so often adopt double standards - applying completely different standards for the 'evidence' associated with the fantastical claims of their religion to the fantastical claims of other religions and myths.

[jeremyp]

By salvation I suppose I mean rescued from the alienation one has from God

Still not a universal human characteristic.

What other magic bullet exists out there?

Magic bullet for what?

[jeremyp]

Women saw the angel and empty tomb first, according to all four gospels. This satisfies the criterion of embarrassment since women generally could not give evidence in Jewish law.

The gospels are not the proceedings of a trial. The women found the empty tomb because it was women's work to prepare bodies for burial. The gospel writers presumably thought it would be more realistic to have them find the tomb.

Plus there's evidence that Christianity was not quite as misogynistic in the early days as it became later.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Still not a universal human characteristic.

There is often insufficient observation and self reflection...which actually would be made worse by adopting Davey’s suggested way of seeing the universe. God dodging, bad feeling and alienation in the world are symptoms

Magic bullet for what?

For getting rid of narrowness, parochialism, self obsession, anthropocentricity and a whole load of other wants Davey alludes to.

[Spud]

The gospels are not the proceedings of a trial. The women found the empty tomb because it was women's work to prepare bodies for burial. The gospel writers presumably thought it would be more realistic to have them find the tomb.

Plus there's evidence that Christianity was not quite as misogynistic in the early days as it became later.

But it's still embarrassing that the angel was seen by and spoke to the women, not the men. Also, if it was a conspiracy, why didn't they harmonize their details - how many angels, etc - before writing their accounts?

[Spud]

You are very  credulous and lack skepticism

and, lacking video evidence, criteria of historicity will have to do

[jeremyp]

There is often insufficient observation and self reflection...

Not the same thing as everybody needing to be saved.

which actually would be made worse by adopting Davey’s suggested way of seeing the universe. God dodging, bad feeling and alienation in the world are symptomsFor getting rid of narrowness, parochialism, self obsession, anthropocentricity and a whole load of other wants Davey alludes to.

What's wrong with God dodging? Everybody does it

[jeremyp]

But it's still embarrassing that the angel was seen by and spoke to the women, not the men.

What's your evidence that it was embarrassing to the early Christians?

Also, if it was a conspiracy, why didn't they harmonize their details - how many angels, etc - before writing their accounts?

Did I say it was a conspiracy. It could simply be that Mark wrote the women in and then the other writers copied him, embellishing the story as they saw fit.

[ProfessorDavey]

and, lacking video evidence, criteria of historicity will have to do

But applying the criteria for historicity this claim fails woefully, just as the claim that Icarus and Daedalus flew from Crete.

For a claim to be considered credible under the criteria for historicity it needs to go way beyond a narrative written decades (and the earliest copy from hundreds of years later) making a claim. You'd expect some kind of corroborative narrative or archeological evidence, ideally both and ideally some evidence that is contemporaneous and non-partial (i.e. from people with no agenda to make such a claim).

For the claim in the gospels none of that is present and it includes a fantastic claim of angels (for which there is no evidence of their existence). So if you compare the story of Icarus and Daedalus and the story of the woman at the tomb and you are objective in applying the criteria for historicity you'd struggle to determine which is less credible. But realistically neither holds any meaningful credibility.

[ProfessorDavey]

But it's still embarrassing that the angel was seen by and spoke to the women, not the men.

There is no evidence that angels exist, so whether a non-existent entity speaks to a man or a non-existent entity speaks to a woman seems rather irrelevant, doesn't it.

Would you accept a claim that unicorns only appear to children as being credible?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Not the same thing as everybody needing to be saved.

It is a way of making sense of how one is and one’s desires fears needs. Anything or anybody suggesting avoiding these because there is no self or depth of self IMO misleads and is guilty of wanting to exclude the self from any analysis. From the outside and inside I can recognise Goddodging and its partner self dodging

What's wrong with God dodging? Everybody does it

Argumentum ad populum. It is a way of dodging god and dodging self as shown up by God.
It is a symptom of Gods holiness and our need for it.

[Gordon]

It is a way of making sense of how one is and one’s desires fears needs. Anything or anybody suggesting avoiding these because there is no self or depth of self IMO misleads and is guilty of wanting to exclude the self from any analysis. From the outside and inside I can recognise Goddodging and its partner self dodging

Says you: the (not so) Artful Dodger, given your trademark evasiveness.

Argumentum ad populum. It is a way of dodging god and dodging self as shown up by God.
It is a symptom of Gods holiness and our need for it.

Which is begging the question, with an added dash of reification.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

For getting rid of narrowness, parochialism, self obsession, anthropocentricity and a whole load of other wants Davey alludes to.

Well that's Christianity dead in the water then... 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

It is a way of making sense of how one is and one’s desires fears needs.

How some people are and feel. Others of us though are not so afflicted. 

Anything or anybody suggesting avoiding these because there is no self or depth of self IMO misleads and is guilty of wanting to exclude the self from any analysis. From the outside and inside I can recognise Goddodging and its partner self dodging

No, the only "dodging" here is the non-acceptance of the stories some people tell themselves to assuage their existential fear of mortality.
 

Argumentum ad populum. It is a way of dodging god and dodging self as shown up by God.

Circular reasoning: god is real because god shows he's real.

It is a symptom of Gods holiness and our need for it.

Argument by assertion. Tell us first what you mean by "God", demonstrate its existence and explain why it's "holy". Good luck with that.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Says you: the (not so) Artful Dodger, given your trademark evasiveness.

Which is begging the question, with an added dash of reification.

Gordon, you strike me as a man who finds God both abbhorant but exhilarating at the same time. Hence your fascination with religion.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Well that's Christianity dead in the water then...

But what exactly is it that will meet Davey's desires? Including something that speaks to other species....what ever he means by that.
veganism perhaps.
I find it ironic that at a convention on cosmology Paul Davies called Dawkins out for his parochial concerns. So maybe  Davey is just projecting New atheism's parochialism.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Gordon, you strike me as a man who finds God both abbhorant but exhilarating at the same time. Hence your fascination with religion.

Dubious premise, fallacy of reification and a non sequitur. You've scored a hat-trick!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

How some people are and feel. Others of us though are not so afflicted.

That could just be hardness of heart or blunting of conscience. 

No, the only "dodging" here is the non-acceptance of the stories some people tell themselves to assuage their existential fear of mortality.

Dawkinsian bravado on your part. First of all we all have that that is why we don't check ourselves out and only do under torment. It seems Davey wants an all encompassing whatever a cosmic greatness and connectiveness in which he can lose himself and never have to make any inner investigation again.
 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

But what exactly is it that will meet Davey's desires? Including something that speaks to other species....what ever he means by that.
veganism perhaps.

What desires? So far as I can tell he hasn’t said he has any.

I find it ironic that at a convention on cosmology Paul Davies called Dawkins out for his parochial concerns. So maybe  Davey is just projecting New atheism's parochialism.
==

Just out of interest, is there any discussion about any subject at all that you won’t drag Richard Dawkins into? Plumbing? Morris dancing?

I have no idea what Davies said (you haven’t provided a citation) but if RD was addressing religion then it’s hardly surprising if he was playing on its parochial turf I’d have thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That could just be hardness of heart or blunting of conscience.

Or the very opposite of those things.

Dawkinsian bravado on your part. First of all we all have that that is why we don't check ourselves out and only do under torment. It seems Davey wants an all encompassing whatever a cosmic greatness and connectiveness in which he can lose himself and never have to make any inner investigation again.

Did you have a coherent thought in your head when you eructated that dog's breakfast of a paragraph?