Science and spirituality

[ProfessorDavey]

Who gets to decide what is credible in this matter?

Well everyone can pitch in, but clearly for any evidence to be credible it needs to be able to stand up to robust scrutiny. And of course christians don't think it does - why, because it is a matter of faith or belief to christians. If evidence is credible and strong it isn't accepted on faith or belief. I don't need faith or belief that the earth goes around the sun because the evidence for this is credible and strong.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Well everyone can pitch in, but clearly for any evidence to be credible it needs to be able to stand up to robust scrutiny. And of course christians don't think it does - why, because it is a matter of faith or belief to christians. If evidence is credible and strong it isn't accepted on faith or belief. I don't need faith or belief that the earth goes around the sun because the evidence for this is credible and strong.

I think it is a bit more complex than that. Christian faith is an act of commitment subsequent to the encounter with God.
But the new testament and historical culture presents itself as the same encounter in a moment of time.

Now this is a time from which not many extant documents still exist so the history is pieced together in a different way from say, contemporary history.

At the end of the day I think objections to the resurrection are not then based on history but on what normally happens and what you believe can happen. In fact some of those those who don't accept the resurrection are sceptical of history and find it unreliable.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes I did - I pointed out that the 'resurrection' wasn't a historical claim and that is was more akin to fantastical myths, such as Romulis and Remus and the she-wolf. I also noted that I've yet to see a theist clearly explain on what basis they have addressed the risks of mistakes or lies in the NT stories about this 'resurrection' without recourse to fallacies.

So, I'd say that my position is one of justified scepticism since I can see no good reasons, having dispensed with the bad reasons, to think that the claimed 'resurrection' of Jesus is a proposition that merits serious consideration.

The resurrection has been claimed as historical fact for centuries and the Jesus as myth theory is not mainstream.

I think generally historical concensus is rather that the resurrection as reported in the epistles and by the historical culture was held as genuine by the very early Christian community.

After that, yes, there are aspects that you either believe or don't believe

[Gordon]

I think it is a bit more complex than that. Christian faith is an act of commitment subsequent to the encounter with God.

Not quite - there may be a feeling of a personal encounter with 'God' but that is insufficient to show that this 'God' does indeed exist and was encountered. That may be enough to result in personal faith but it isn't enough to demonstrate facts that are external to these feelings.

Now this is a time from which not many extant documents still exist so the history is pieced together in a different way from say, contemporary history.

The NT accounts are of uncertain provenance and date from decades after the events the make claims about. As with any documents there are risks of bias, mistakes and lies, and while at this distance these can't be addressed and it seems to me that Christians prefer to avoid acknowledging these risks. So I'd say that the NT isn't robust enough to be considered as factual history but may well suit the different demands of personal faith: it is important not to conflate the two. 

At the end of the day I think objections to the resurrection are not then based on history but on what normally happens and what you believe can happen.

You're mixing things up again: the resurrection claims aren't factual history, for the reasons noted above, and that they contain fantastical claims about dead people not staying dead futher distances them from being a portrayal of a historical event, and that some people believe the NT resurrection story as a matter of personal faith is a wholly separate issue from historical facts.
 

In fact those who don't accept the resurrection are sceptical of history and find it unreliable.

On that we are agreed.

[Gordon]

The resurrection has been claimed as historical fact for centuries and the Jesus as myth theory is not mainstream.

Perhaps only by those with pre-exsting faith and/or who are disinclined to be sceptical when it comes to their faith-based beliefs - and you deploying an ad pop doesn't turn faith into fact.   

I think generally historical concensus is rather that the resurrection as reported in the epistles and by the historical culture was held as genuine by the very early Christian community.

You're conflating faith and historical fact again. It way well be true that early Christians, and indeed later and current Christians, really believed that this 'resurrection' actually happened and is a historical reality - but thier belief alone isn't sufficient to conclude that the 'resurrection' was a actual historical event, and that is without taking into account that the these beliefs involve an acceptance of supernatural agency at work.

After that, yes, there are aspects that you either believe or don't believe

I don't that that belief, as in personal faith, is a good indicator here - is it possible that these early Christian communities you mention were quite simply wrong or were misled?

[ProfessorDavey]

The resurrection has been claimed as historical fact for centuries and the Jesus as myth theory is not mainstream.

Nice bit of ramming two completely distinct elements together.

Just because people have believed in the resurrection for centuries doesn't mean that it is true, nor that their belief is based on evidence, rather than ... err ... belief!

But also it is perfectly reasonable to accept it is likely that a person called Jesus lived at that time, but also completely reject the biblical claims. Actually we have virtually zero evidence for the historicity of Jesus at all, but I and I suspect and many of us here would probably accept, for the sake of argument, that there was some historical person. What we do not accept, and will not accept without credible evidence is the miracle claims, the resurrection etc etc. So what we are left with is a guy who probably went around teaching for a while and then died - so what.

So don't try to ram these two elements - thinking that Jesus probably existed doesn't mean accepting the biblical claims whatsoever.

[Outrider]

You may be arguing from your own incredulity here.

Proceeding from a place of scepticism until sufficient evidence is provided is not an argument from incredulity; that's refuting the evidence on the basis that you don't believe or understand it.

O.

[Maeght]

At the end of the day I think objections to the resurrection are not then based on history but on what normally happens and what you believe can happen. In fact some of those those who don't accept the resurrection are sceptical of history and find it unreliable.

It is about evidence. I accept that belief in the resurrection existed early on but that doesn't make it an historical fact. Clearly something happened to start that belief but what that was we cannot say.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nice bit of ramming two completely distinct elements together.

Just because people have believed in the resurrection for centuries doesn't mean that it is true, nor that their belief is based on evidence, rather than ... err ... belief!

But the epistles not only present the risen Jesus as history but they even offer a group of witnesses. So I would disagree with your thesis here. What you are describing is myth and the myths we are used too aren’t presented like this but in a complete context of the fantastic vis Romulus and Remus.

But also it is perfectly reasonable to accept it is likely that a person called Jesus lived at that time, but also completely reject the biblical claims. Actually we have virtually zero evidence for the historicity of Jesus at all, but I and I suspect and many of us here would probably accept, for the sake of argument, that there was some historical person. What we do not accept, and will not accept without credible evidence is the miracle claims, the resurrection etc etc. So what we are left with is a guy who probably went around teaching for a while and then died - so what.

But these are not historical objections rather probability and belief and both of these are contentious.

So don't try to ram these two elements - thinking that Jesus probably existed doesn't mean accepting the biblical claims whatsoever.

Merely because Romulus and Remus were invoked.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Perhaps only by those with pre-exsting faith and/or who are disinclined to be sceptical when it comes to their faith-based beliefs - and you deploying an ad pop doesn't turn faith into fact.   

You're conflating faith and historical fact again. It way well be true that early Christians, and indeed later and current Christians, really believed that this 'resurrection' actually happened and is a historical reality - but thier belief alone isn't sufficient to conclude that the 'resurrection' was a actual historical event, and that is without taking into account that the these beliefs involve an acceptance of supernatural agency at work.

I don't that that belief, as in personal faith, is a good indicator here - is it possible that these early Christian communities you mention were quite simply wrong or were misled?

Are you sceptical on this or convinced that you have concrete historical proof that history took a non resurrection course?

If not then be upfront and admit you are merely sceptical and don’t believe it given your world view.

In short Gordon it seems to be you conflating historical fact and belief.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Proceeding from a place of scepticism until sufficient evidence is provided is not an argument from incredulity; that's refuting the evidence on the basis that you don't believe or understand it.

O.

Does that scepticism stretch to the inferred history without resurrection?
Is scepticism any good without moving on from it?

[Gordon]

Are you sceptical on this or convinced that you have concrete historical proof that history took a non resurrection course?

You are certainly plumbing the depths of daftness this morning, Vlad: I'm sceptical due to the absence of robust evidence, the risks of mistakes, bias and lies and also the nature of the resurrection claims. I see you are nudging in the direction of an NPF now - the burden of proof regarding the resurrection is not mine: it's yours. 

If not then be upfront and admit you are merely sceptical and don’t believe it given your world view.

I told you yesterday that I was sceptical, and that has nothing to do with any 'world view' (whatever that means) - it is the result of there being no robust evidence for any 'resurrection', and that these ancient anecdotal accounts can reasonably be doubted. I'll ask again: do you think that it is possible that these early first/second century Christians might simply be wrong, were misleading themselves or were misled?

In short Gordon it seems to be you conflating historical fact and belief.

Not guilty - you are making that mistake, not me. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'resurrection' is not a historical event - stories about a resurrection claim have certainly had an influence, but you musn't conflate stories with historical events.

So Gordon you made this positive assertion and then tried to justify it with an absence of robust evidence is robust evidence of absence argument rather than offering a concrete account of what actually happened.That and flannel from you and your colleagues about proceeding from scepticism.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are certainly plumbing the depths of daftness this morning, Vlad: I'm sceptical due to the absence of robust evidence, the risks of mistakes, bias and lies and also the nature of the resurrection claims. I see you are nudging in the direction of an NPF now - the burden of proof regarding the resurrection is not mine: it's yours. 

I told you yesterday that I was sceptical, and that has nothing to do with any 'world view' (whatever that means) - it is the result of there being no robust evidence for any 'resurrection', and that these ancient anecdotal accounts can reasonably be doubted. I'll ask again: do you think that it is possible that these early first/second century Christians might simply be wrong, were misleading themselves or were misled?

Not guilty - you are making that mistake, not me.

I have stated why I share the mainstream view that what we can say is that the resurrection was genuinely believed from the get go and I have no reason to automatically believe that the first Christians were liars. And that is historically as far as you can go and certainly beyond where your world view let’s you, hence your myth accusation.
In other words history does not suit your atheism.

[Gordon]

So Gordon you made this positive assertion and then tried to justify it with an absence of robust evidence is robust evidence of absence argument rather than offering a concrete account of what actually happened.That and flannel from you and your colleagues about proceeding from scepticism.

You seem to be reduced to speaking bollocks now, Vlad: there is no robust evidence that this 'resurrection' ever happened, since if there was then it would be historical fact and no religious faith would be required. Not my job to offer some kind of 'concerte' alternative regarding 'what actually happened', since I can't exclude that the risk that story is wrong or fabricated, so scepticism seems like the only reasonable position to take.

You haven't answered my earlier question about whether you think it at least possible that the resurrection believing early-Christians that you mentioned could have been wrong, mislead themselves or were misled.

[Gordon]

I have stated why I share the mainstream view that what we can say is that the resurrection was genuinely believed from the get go and I have no reason to automatically believe that the first Christians were liars. And that is historically as far as you can go and certainly beyond where your world view let’s you, hence your myth accusation.
In other words history does not suit your atheism.

Even dafter: which bit of 'genuinely believed' is not the same thing as 'historical fact' are you not comprehending.

Moreover, if you have discounted the possibility that these early Christians either lied, were lied to or were mistaken then you really shouldn't be peddling the historical fact line, especially since you seem unable to distinguish between history and belief. It seems you are now indulging in special pleading.

Being sceptical is not reserved to atheists you know.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be reduced to speaking bollocks now, Vlad: there is no robust evidence that this 'resurrection' ever happened, since if there was then it would be historical fact and no religious faith would be required. Not my job to offer some kind of 'concerte' alternative regarding 'what actually happened', since I can't exclude that the risk that story is wrong or fabricated, so scepticism seems like the only reasonable position to take.

You haven't answered my earlier question about whether you think it at least possible that the resurrection believing early-Christians that you mentioned could have been wrong, mislead themselves or were misled.

It is presented and presents itself as history Gordon in the memoranda of the first Christians.
Works it looks like you aren’t familiar with.

You were caught red handed making a positive assertion and not backing it up.

[Gordon]

It is presented and presents itself as history Gordon in the memoranda of the first Christians.

No it doesn't: it presents as a fantastical set of anecdotes from antiquity with no robust supporting evidence, no provenance and the risks of human artifice. Put simply - easily dismissed as factual history.

Works it looks like you aren’t familiar with.

I don't treat the NT or early Christians with any reverance, that is true: but I know enough of the claims and the faiilibility of people to be reasonably sceptical.

You were caught red handed making a positive assertion and not backing it up.

Don't silly - you sound desperate now. I clearly explained why I was sceptical. btw you still haven't told me whether or not you think it possible that these early Christians could be wrong, were mislead or did any misleading - but my experience of Christians is that they won't engage with these risks in any meaningful sense, since to do so risks undermining their faith beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it doesn't: it presents as a fantastical set of anecdotes from antiquity with no robust supporting evidence, no provenance and the risks of human artifice. Put simply - easily dismissed as factual history.

I don't treat the NT or early Christians with any reverance, that is true: but I know enough of the claims and the faiilibility of people to be reasonably sceptical.

Don't silly - you sound desperate now. I clearly explained why I was sceptical. btw you still haven't told me whether or not you think it possible that these early Christians could be wrong, were mislead or did any misleading - but my experience of Christians is that they won't engage with these risks in any meaningful sense, since to do so risks undermining their faith beliefs.

Ah,The fallacy of modernity...in neon.

[Outrider]

Does that scepticism stretch to the inferred history without resurrection?

What would history look like if the resurrection were real? How would it look different if the resurrection were not real, but some people believed it was?

Is scepticism any good without moving on from it?

Who's not moving on? You move on when you have a justification, not when you've gotten bored of not having an answer yet.

O.

[Gordon]

Ah,The fallacy of modernity...in neon.

No; but then fallacies are a mystery to you, and scepticism isn't exactly a novel approach to anything.

So - you have yet clarified whether or not you think is possible that early Christian could be wrong, were misled or did some misleading. Perhaps you could actually address that instead of ignoring and diverting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What would history look like if the resurrection were real? How would it look different if the resurrection were not real, but some people believed it was?

If it is a hoax then I think we are looking at the single most successful one in history. Unfortunately it's success looks miraculous so I would be looking for alternative real history which debunks the resurrection, records of the overturning and the bringing to book for the fraud...rather than religious or political offence caused.
And that is the point. If you are going to claim historical fraud, historical mass gullibility, historical mass hallucination etc. Then it strikes me you need historical evidence for those assertions.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No; but then fallacies are a mystery to you, and scepticism isn't exactly a novel approach to anything.

So - you have yet clarified whether or not you think is possible that early Christian could be wrong, were misled or did some misleading. Perhaps you could actually address that instead of ignoring and diverting.

wrong as in mass hallucination at different times and groups do you mean? Put the case if you think that is so. I'm not convinced, misleading? No reason after all they believed he was dead. Again, put the case.

[Nearly Sane]

wrong as in mass hallucination at different times and groups do you mean? Put the case if you think that is so. I'm not convinced, misleading? No reason after all they believed he was dead. Again, put the case.

Trying to reverse the burden of proof is one of your many tedious approaches.

[Gordon]

wrong as in mass hallucination at different times and groups do you mean? Put the case if you think that is so. I'm not convinced, misleading? No reason after all they believed he was dead. Again, put the case.

Good heavens: you are dense today - the burden of proof is yours!

Let me put it simply - do you think it is possible that the NT reports of witnesses and the no doubt sincerely held beliefs of early Christians, and later ones too, could be based on the NT containing mistakes and/or lies? I'm asking you a simple question and not advancing any form of case, such as mass hallucinations, and I've already said that scepticism leads me to dismiss the story being historically accurate (even without the supernatural bits).