Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But these two categories seem to be mutually exclusive:

Explain how

.

 

[Gordon]

Explain how

.

Because one has methods that are suited to investigation, such as events involving human behaviour (e.g. baptisms or executions, which you mentioned earlier), and the other doesn't (e.g. claimed miracles involving walking on water or dead people not staying dead).

Of course you already know this, since you've been told this often enough before now.

[Gordon]

Not really. The Holy matrimony of believers say is a historical, legal, psychological and spiritual event.

What is a 'spiritual event' and how do you detect one of these events?

The union with England is a historical, legal and an effect on national psyche, so an event can be more than one category. Given this could you please explain how a explain how a conflation is happening.

And all three of the aspects you mention here can be investigated using naturalistic methods of enquiry: so, let us consider that there is a category of things that are suited to naturalistic methods of enquiry. However, the NT supernatural miracle claims, such as dead people not staying dead and Jesus walking on water, are not suited to naturalistic methods of enquiry, since if they were then you could advise on the correct methodology so as to verify miracles: and you can't, which implies that miracle claims are in a different category as regards methods of investigation.

To show I'm wrong then all you need do now is show how naturalistic methods of enquiry can include the investigation of miracles. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Not really. The Holy matrimony of believers say is a historical, legal, psychological and spiritual event.

The union with England is a historical, legal and an effect on national psyche, so an event can be more than one category. Given this could you please explain how a explain how a conflation is happening.

Even though you’re well on your way to Australia here you should stop digging anyway. Really, you should.

Aesop’s Hare & the Tortoise fable is “true” on various allegorical, psychological, ethical, whatever levels too but that doesn’t mean that there was an actual hare and tortoise racing each other. You on the other hand claim a resurrection that was not only an allegory from which you happen to derive various meanings, but also that it actually happened as a material event – a man-god was (according to you) alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again. This literal version would have required countless physiological functions to have been in place, then absent, then in place again.

Just slapping labels on the story like “theological” etc doesn’t change that one jot. Either you think the physical occurrence happened or you don’t, no matter what other meaning the story has for you.   

Try to grasp this.   

[Spud]

Why is it unlikely - people do have imaginations you know.

Why tell us who got to the tomb first but not the colour of Peter's hair, or more of that kind of stuff which you usually find in fiction? Perhaps that is a distinguishing hallmark of someone's recollection of an event? Or perhaps it isn't.

[Gordon]

Why tell us who got to the tomb first but not the colour of Peter's hair, or more of that kind of stuff which you usually find in fiction? Perhaps that is a distinguishing hallmark of someone's recollection of an event? Or perhaps it isn't.

Spud

Unless you have a hotline to the unknown author(s) of these stories then their motivation for including, or indeed excluding, trivial details isn't something you can really opine on.

Even if you accept what you say the story says, being as it is a trivial claim anyway, that person A got to the tomb before person B, that doesn't allow you to presume that all the other claims in the NT are therefore also true - especially so when these other claims are fantastical.

Face it, Spud: aside from aspects such as place names and certain people, the rest of the NT details involving Jesus and his followers are indistinguishable from fiction.

[jeremyp]

If you are positively asserting inaccuracy

I'm not doing that though. I'm positively asserting that the evidence you think you have is unreliable.

then you have to say where and how they are inaccurate in other words, what is the proper history. What you have effectively ended up with is ''I don't know what happened but I know it didn't happen like that.

No, you are mischaracterising what I am saying. I'm saying "I don't know what happened, and neither do you". If you say "my clock tells me it is two o'clock in the afternoon and I say "but the hands haven't moved for  at least four hours" I don't have to propose an alternative time for us to agree your clock has stopped.

What is a bit obvious though is that Historians seem to be in agreement with the secular parts of the ministry but difficulties with the religious. Here I think that looks more due to a suspension of history and adoption of one's beliefs.

I think historians are in agreement about the secular part of Jesus' ministry: they agree there's no good evidence that it was as the gospels say. My personal opinion, based on what evidence there is, is that Christianity had a founder and it is probable that the Jesus of the gospel stories is that founder, but pretty much everything else is speculation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Even though you’re well on your way to Australia here you should stop digging anyway. Really, you should.

This is good sign that you are so unsure of your argument. You would propbably have got right into it if you had been.

Water muddying.
Aesop’s Hare & the Tortoise fable is “true” on various allegorical, psychological, ethical, whatever levels too but that doesn’t mean that there was an actual hare and tortoise racing each other. You on the other hand claim a resurrection that was not only an allegory from which you happen to derive various meanings,

We weren't discussing allegory we were discussing theology. Therefore category confusion and straw man

– a man-god was (according to you) alive, then dead for a bit, then alive again. This literal version would have required countless physiological functions to have been in place, then absent, then in place again.

To give an allegory Hillside, I can imagine a student of William Harvey's asking if there could ever be a transplantation of the heart being told ''This literal version would have required countless physiological functions to have been in place,etc''

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Because one has methods that are suited to investigation, such as events involving human behaviour (e.g. baptisms or executions, which you mentioned earlier), and the other doesn't (e.g. claimed miracles involving walking on water or dead people not staying dead).

That does not answer how I am confusing them or how both are mutually exclusive. There is no identifiable effort to confuse particularly as I used both/and.

This post is merely a bit of an advertisement for your argument from disbelief.

Theology does encompass areas of psychology and anthropology.

Any way since you have brought it now for The rebuttal of Dead people cannot become alive again.

1: Argument from materialism: Life is a phenomenon dependent on the organisation and arrangement matter. Organisation and rearrangement are not impossible. Resurrection would be even less possible if ''Life'' was an entity of it's own as in vitalism or the soul.

2: Argument from ''Advanced aliens'', An advanced technology could perform such
technology.

3: Argument from improbable event. Resurrection could be a highly improbable set of circumstances.

4: Argument from induction; The black swan argument.

5: Argument from simulated universe theory (AKA the death knell of many an atheist argument), The creator could resurrect any of the simulants.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What is a 'spiritual event' and how do you detect one of these events?

In the event of holy matrimony in Christian terms it is a declaration between two people before God'' . How do you detect whether this is happening? Repenting and having faith in Jesus Christ. In terms of the spirituality of man as held by some secular humanists, I suppose the feeling that these are two persons who are so in love they are just meant for each other. Method of detection, Intuition.

And all three of the aspects you mention here can be investigated using naturalistic methods of enquiry: so, let us consider that there is a category of things that are suited to naturalistic methods of enquiry. However, the NT supernatural miracle claims, such as dead people not staying dead and Jesus walking on water, are not suited to naturalistic methods of enquiry

That isn't so. If it happened it would be visually discerned, detectable in the infra red, The feet of the pedestrian in question could be examined for moisture subsequently.  Etc. Similar observations could be made in the case of a resurrection. Vis St Thomas's experience.

You are letting your unbelief cloud the obvious.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not doing that though. I'm positively asserting that the evidence you think you have is unreliable.
No, you are mischaracterising what I am saying. I'm saying "I don't know what happened, and neither do you". If you say "my clock tells me it is two o'clock in the afternoon and I say "but the hands haven't moved for  at least four hours" I don't have to propose an alternative time for us to agree your clock has stopped.

I know I wasn't there but We are ''not there for the vast majority of things''. Given that, having encountered Christ I am able to work backwards. If Jesus had not been resurrected  there could be no encounter.

I think historians are in agreement about the secular part of Jesus' ministry: they agree there's no good evidence that it was as the gospels say. My personal opinion, based on what evidence there is, is that Christianity had a founder and it is probable that the Jesus of the gospel stories is that founder, but pretty much everything else is speculation.

No agreement on the manifesto or divine acts of Jesus is imho down to beliefs rather than history. Historically speaking you are right, Although I probably think we are closer to history with the epistles and what CS Lewis, Professionally an Oxford Academic critic of literature , calls ''reportage'' in the Gospels and Acts. I also think you do have a duty to provide the alternative.......or maybe it's OK if I do and examine it on your behalf.

[Gordon]

In the event of holy matrimony in Christian terms it is a declaration between two people before God'' . How do you detect whether this is happening? Repenting and having faith in Jesus Christ. In terms of the spirituality of man as held by some secular humanists, I suppose the feeling that these are two persons who are so in love they are just meant for each other. Method of detection, Intuition.

So, feeling 'spiritual' is just like any other feeling, be it happy, sad, worried, carefree or a feeling of 'faith' in religious traditions: that someone has a 'faith' feeling that relates to their idea of 'God' doesn't imply that this 'God' is anything other than a feeling they have.
   

That isn't so. If it happened it would be visually discerned, detectable in the infra red, The feet of the pedestrian in question could be examined for moisture subsequently.  Etc. Similar observations could be made in the case of a resurrection. Vis St Thomas's experience.

Aside from the obvious risks involving human artifice, which you guys seem programmed to avoid acknowledging, and since you mention infra red and moisture detection in relation to the miracle claims I mentioned, you'll need to firm up these ideas into some sort of methodology. Moreover, since both infra red radiation (though not understood back in antiquity) and moisture would be detected using naturalistic methods I'm curious to know how these somehow imply the non naturalistic. I suspect you're clutching at straws again.

You are letting your unbelief cloud the obvious.

If something is so obvious why then I'm wondering why you can't you explain it clearly and concisely without tripping yourself up.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So, feeling 'spiritual' is just like any other feeling, be it happy, sad, worried, carefree or a feeling of 'faith' in religious traditions: that someone has a 'faith' feeling that relates to their idea of 'God' doesn't imply that this 'God' is anything other than a feeling they have.

No, it is the detection of the divine brought about by, in the case of Christianity, that involves revelation and response. Humanist spirituality is more feeling and intuition often unexamined. The two are different obviously. Once again you are being blinded by what you are prepared to believe and not believe.

Aside from the obvious risks involving human artifice, which you guys seem programmed to avoid acknowledging

How programmed? I am certainly prepared to debate you over thatI do not acknowledge that and that can only come from your emotions at not being immediately concurred with. What I am against is automatically assuming human artifice as I believe you are doing

, and since you mention infra red and moisture detection in relation to the miracle claims I mentioned, you'll need to firm up these ideas into some sort of methodology. Moreover, since both infra red radiation (though not understood back in antiquity) and moisture would be detected using naturalistic methods I'm curious to know how these somehow imply the non naturalistic. I suspect you're clutching at straws again.

I'm afraid I need notice to deal with cases of invincible ignorance but here goes... Assuming somebody did walk on water there are several naturalistic elements. 1) The someone 2) The observer and any equipment carried 3) The water 4) walking. Do you see now? You are starting with the assumption that there are no natural elements here which is just...not so. I suspect this boils to starting off with ''these things never happen...''

If something is so obvious why then I'm wondering why you can't you explain it clearly and concisely without tripping yourself up.

Hopefully this has now been explained to you clearly and concisely.

[Stranger]

Given that, having encountered Christ...

Where is your evidence and/or reasoning for this bold claim? You may well sincerely believe it but fantastical claims of encounters with various gods and other supernatural entities, along with alien abductions, and strange beasts, are ten a penny.

In the case of religious claims, at least most of them must be false because they contradict each other.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is your evidence and/or reasoning for this bold claim? You may well sincerely believe it but fantastical claims of encounters with various gods and other supernatural entities, along with alien abductions, and strange beasts, are ten a penny.

In the case of religious claims, at least most of them must be false because they contradict each other.

Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?
I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?

Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.

[Nearly Sane]

Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?
I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?

Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.

Your claim, your burden of proof.

[Stranger]

Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?

Once again Vlad fails to grasp the burden of proof. 

It's not impossible that you are right but you have provided nothing whatsoever in the way of reasons why we should believe it and, as I said, often mutually exclusive, fantastical claims are ten a penny.

I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?

The problem is that you can't give any reason at all why we should take it seriously (as a literal encounter with somebody who - if they existed at all - died 2000 years ago).

Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.

It's simply the application of a rational approach to such claims. Once again: burden of proof.

[Gordon]

No, it is the detection of the divine brought about by, in the case of Christianity, that involves revelation and response. Humanist spirituality is more feeling and intuition often unexamined. The two are different obviously. Once again you are being blinded by what you are prepared to believe and not believe.

Leaving aside your use of reification, since the "two are obviously different" they are in different categories so that each will require  methods of investigation that are suited - so, what methods are suited to "the detection of the divine"?
 

How programmed? I am certainly prepared to debate you over thatI do not acknowledge that and that can only come from your emotions at not being immediately concurred with. What I am against is automatically assuming human artifice as I believe you are doing

No I'm not: I'm simply asking, yet again, what steps you guys have taken to exclude the risks of human artifice but it seems that you theistic types would prefer to avoid that issue at all costs.

I'm afraid I need notice to deal with cases of invincible ignorance but here goes... Assuming somebody did walk on water there are several naturalistic elements. 1) The someone 2) The observer and any equipment carried 3) The water 4) walking. Do you see now? You are starting with the assumption that there are no natural elements here which is just...not so. I suspect this boils to starting off with ''these things never happen...''  Hopefully this has now been explained to you clearly and concisely.

All I see is your personal incredulity, Vlad: people can't naturally walk on water without aids, so how have you excluded the risk that the walking on water story is fictitious propaganda? Note also that I'm not claiming that it is fictitious propaganda, and it isn't my claim anyway, I'm just curious as regards how you addressed the risk that it might be.

[ProfessorDavey]

I also think you do have a duty to provide the alternative.......or maybe it's OK if I do and examine it on your behalf.

Nonsense - indeed the duty is not to propose an alternative unless that alternative is backed up by strong (or at least stronger) evidence than the original.

So the scholarly approach is firstly to assess the strength of the evidence for the original claim (in this case that the gospels provide credible historical evidence). In this case the gospels fail the tests of historicity and therefore the conclusion is that there is not sufficient evidence to use the gospels as historical source materials. We might then ask the question - is there evidence about the life of Jesus, separate to the gospels that would allow us to propose an alternative in a historical context. The answer to that question is, no and therefore we should not propose an alternative and merely conclude that there is insufficient credible historical evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions about Jesus' life from a historical perspective, beyond very, very scant assertions (see below).

We are left with the scholarly conclusion that from the evidence:

1. There probably was a person called Jesus
2. That he was likely to have been baptised
3. He was was likely to have been executed

All these are based on the potential independent sources of Josephus and Tacitus - there are no other claims in the gospels about Jesus' life that have any corroborative evidence whatsoever, either independent narrative or archeological. And don't forget that Josephus and Tacitus are largely talking about the presence of christians and the mention of Jesus is in that context. So it is completely unclear whether these sections are genuinely independent or are merely borrowing from the earliest gospels which would have been floating about at the same time. So while claims 1-3 above have slightly more credibility than everything else in the gospels about Jesus' life they are still exceptionally weak from a historical perspective based on the tests of historicity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Once again Vlad fails to grasp the burden of proof. 

Yes I do a positive assertion carries a burden of proof. So if you say it probably didn't happen you need to justify that.

It's not impossible that you are right but you have provided nothing whatsoever in the way of reasons why we should believe it and, as I said, often mutually exclusive, fantastical claims are ten a penny.

The problem is that you can't give any reason at all why we should take it seriously (as a literal encounter with somebody who - if they existed at all - died 2000 years ago).

It's simply the application of a rational approach to such claims. Once again: burden of proof.

I do not recognise the status quo you and your colleagues are proposing. I am not denying the burden of proof I have.

I cannot prove it and have said so. You have conveniently ignored it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is your evidence and/or reasoning for this bold claim? You may well sincerely believe it but fantastical claims of encounters with various gods and other supernatural entities, along with alien abductions, and strange beasts, are ten a penny.

In the case of religious claims, at least most of them must be false because they contradict each other.

Where is Bluehillsides evidence that it probably didn't happen this way or yours?
I can't prove it materially but then is it a material event?

Inevitably your position on this is going to depend on your world view, or life stance or how you think but can't prove the way the universe is.

My reasoning is partly this:
1:Having been introduced to Sagan's cosmic community I did not reject the idea.
2:I developed an overwhelming wonder and joy at Sagan's hypothesis.
3.I identified this with Lewis feeling of the Numinous.
4.I identified the happenings in the world particularly human on human violence and the excuses made for it with a certain moral argument.
5. I found I held what is knownas the moral argument in a good part.
6: I percieved something behind what I was reading and identified it as the reality behind the words.
7: The bible became unusually open to me, I found my understanding of it strangely increased.
8: I no longer felt out of place in a church.
9: I believed that this greater and base reality was God.
10: I find myself praying to God to know more about Jesus
11: I read the Bible and identified the call to the disciples was like the call I was feeling.
12. Recognising Revelations 3:20 personally
13: My weighing up commitment period  Approx 2 hours
13: Asking Jesus to take my life(Not kill me, obviously.)
14: Assurance he had done.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nonsense - indeed the duty is not to propose an alternative unless that alternative is backed up by strong (or at least stronger) evidence than the original.

Wrong if you even have a scintilla of a preference for an alternative you need to declare it. Otherwise you have no reason to claim there is an alternative.

So the scholarly approach is firstly to assess the strength of the evidence for the original claim (in this case that the gospels provide credible historical evidence). In this case the gospels fail the tests of historicity and therefore the conclusion is that there is not sufficient evidence to use the gospels as historical source materials. We might then ask the question - is there evidence about the life of Jesus, separate to the gospels that would allow us to propose an alternative in a historical context. The answer to that question is, no and therefore we should not propose an alternative and merely conclude that there is insufficient credible historical evidence to draw any meaningful conclusions about Jesus' life from a historical perspective, beyond very, very scant assertions (see below).

We are left with the scholarly conclusion that from the evidence:

1. There probably was a person called Jesus
2. That he was likely to have been baptised
3. He was was likely to have been executed

All these are based on the potential independent sources of Josephus and Tacitus - there are no other claims in the gospels about Jesus' life that have any corroborative evidence whatsoever, either independent narrative or archeological. And don't forget that Josephus and Tacitus are largely talking about the presence of christians and the mention of Jesus is in that context. So it is completely unclear whether these sections are genuinely independent or are merely borrowing from the earliest gospels which would have been floating about at the same time. So while claims 1-3 above have slightly more credibility than everything else in the gospels about Jesus' life they are still exceptionally weak from a historical perspective based on the tests of historicity.

So are people who concur with the three events ''Fringe'' or ''Mainstream''?

[Stranger]

I do not recognise the status quo you and your colleagues are proposing. I am not denying the burden of proof I have.

I cannot prove it and have said so. You have conveniently ignored it.

The point is that you haven't just failed to prove it, you have provided nothing in the way of evidence or reasoning, so your claim is in exactly the same category as every other (often contradictory) religious claim, as well as claims about alien abductions, ghosts, vampires, and the Loch Ness Monster.

[Stranger]

My reasoning is partly this:
1:Having been introduced to Sagan's cosmic community I did not reject the idea.
2:I developed an overwhelming wonder and joy at Sagan's hypothesis.
3.I identified this with Lewis feeling of the Numinous.
4.I identified the happenings in the world particularly human on human violence and the excuses made for it with a certain moral argument.
5. I found I held what is knownas the moral argument in a good part.
6: I percieved something behind what I was reading and identified it as the reality behind the words.
7: The bible became unusually open to me, I found my understanding of it strangely increased.
8: I no longer felt out of place in a church.
9: I believed that this greater and base reality was God.
10: I find myself praying to God to know more about Jesus
11: I read the Bible and identified the call to the disciples was like the call I was feeling.
12. Recognising Revelations 3:20 personally
13: My weighing up commitment period  Approx 2 hours
13: Asking Jesus to take my life(Not kill me, obviously.)
14: Assurance he had done.

Except it isn't reasoning, is it? It's all about how you felt and what you believed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

This is good sign that you are so unsure of your argument. You would propbably have got right into it if you had been.

You made and then repeated your burden of proof mistake. I advised you to stop digging. That was good advice – you should have taken it.

We weren't discussing allegory we were discussing theology. Therefore category confusion and straw man

No, you were arguing (ok, asserting rather) that there are different types of truths about the event being a physical occurrence. I explained to you that the same is true of other narratives (like Aesop's fables), but that doesn’t help you one jot to support the claim that a literal resurrection occurred.   

To give an allegory Hillside, I can imagine a student of William Harvey's asking if there could ever be a transplantation of the heart being told ''This literal version would have required countless physiological functions to have been in place,etc''

The analogy fails: in your case you’re asserting that such a thing happened before technologies were available that would have enabled it. You’re conflating a miracle narrative with a material one - a basic category error.