Science and spirituality

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Leaving aside the veneration of a specific subjective experience, what is the relevance of 'philosophic naturalists' here?

Veneration? Rhetorical stinking atheist shite.

On the matter of philosophical naturalists , sure,  people who are philosophically y naturalist read and comment on the scriptures.

[Nearly Sane]

Veneration? Rhetorical stinking atheist shite.

On the matter of philosophical naturalists , sure,  people who are philosophically y naturalist read and comment on the scriptures.

Ah, the joys of being an atheist where we get to create rhetoric, and bathe in bathos, make merry in metaphor, and sycopate in synecdoche while the poor theists must trudge to daily drudge at the word mines, eking out their bare sparse denuded language, only able to eat, pray, love with the atheist scraps.

[Outrider]

Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible. Of course there is a risk of bias but that could be true of a philosophical naturalist.

Professional training in tested medical science can also equip people to deal with the delusional...

Given the professionalism of historians it is no wonder that the Consensus is that Jesus life and death gave rise to resurrection believing communities across the Middle East within a couple of decades.

No. The consensus is that within a hundred years or so of the purported events that there were believing communities across the Middle-East - the presence of those communities no more validates the claims of a magical Jesus than the presence of Scientologists supports the contention that Xenu's space-faring DC-10s are an historical fact.
 

There is insufficient evidence for history running another way.

But there is insufficient evidence of the 'historians' consensus' that you claim.

Now, philosophical naturalists have little or no experience of being part of a small converted community and I would move lack understanding of them.

You don't need to be part of something to understand it. You don't need to accept it to understand it.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible.

Except, of course, conversion is exceptionally rare. So in the UK (and other countries are similar) virtually everyone who is an adherent of a religion (and therefore may believe the faith claims of that religion) was brought up in that religion as a child and therefore brought up to believe those faith claims. Of the rest most were brought up as adherents of a different religion and then may have shifted religion, but still have an upbringing with an expectation that faith claims are to be believed.

So where exactly is the 'conversion' as in pretty well all cases a specific religion (or at least religion) is baked into that person from birth through upbringing.

If you are actually interested in conversion then the place to look is the huge numbers of people brought up religious who then 'convert' to being non religious and/or atheist. That accounts for pretty well 50% of people brought up in a religious manner. That involves people brought up to believe the faith claims of christianity and yet, as adults, when they are able to analyse those claims in a more objective and mature manner ... err ... reject them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except, of course, conversion is exceptionally rare. So in the UK (and other countries are similar) virtually everyone who is an adherent of a religion (and therefore may believe the faith claims of christianity) was brought up in that religion as a child. Of the rest most were brought up as adherents of a different religion and then may have shifted religion.

So where exactly is the 'conversion' as in pretty well all cases a specific religion (or at least religion) is baked into that person from birth through upbringing.

If you are actually interested in conversion then the place to look is the huge numbers of people brought up religious who then 'convert' to being non religious and/or atheist. That accounts for pretty well 50% of people brought up in a religious manner. That involves people brought up to believe the faith claims of christianity and yet, as adults, when they are able to analyse those claims in a more objective and mature manner ... err ... reject them.

I think we can all play what is going on in someone else's head doctor. And given atheists description of what is going on with an atheist that ranges from not a lot to whatever is going on with the four horsemen and their posse of scientismatists.

[ProfessorDavey]

I think we can all play what is going on in someone else's head doctor. And given atheists description of what is going on with an atheist that ranges from not a lot to whatever is going on with the four horsemen and their posse of scientismatists.

Yawn - why don't you actually address the point I am making.

To summarise - except in very, very rare cases people who believe faith claims as adults were brought up to believe those faith claims as children - where exactly is the 'conversion'.

By contrast many people who do not believe faith claims as adults were brought up to believe those faith claims as children - that sounds like a conversion to me, and that's where the interest lies. Why is it firstly that so many people reject faith claims when they grow up and secondly why faith claims are pretty well universally unbelievable unless you've been brought up to believe those faith claims.

[jeremyp]

Yes, I think history takes us a bit further to say communities were formed around a genuine belief that this happened

The word "genuine" there is tautological. Yes, it is true that early Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That doesn't mean he actually did.

I disagree. I think that depends on your own worldview or belief set.

You're on the science and technology board. Dead people cannot come alive again. The end.

[Enki]

Experience of conversion may allow that person to analyse conversion claims in the bible. Of course there is a risk of bias but that could be true of a philosophical naturalist.

Whether conversion claims are true or not would depend on whether there is enough evidence for such claims, and n the case of the resurrection, the evidence is decidedly weak.

Given the professionalism of historians it is no wonder that the
Consensus is that Jesus life and death gave rise to resurrection believing communities across the Middle East within a couple of decades.
There is insufficient evidence for history running another way.

None of which addresses the point that the resurrection is/isn't an historical fact and hence has little significance to the point I am raising. Or are you saying that because certain communities believed that x took place, then x must be an historical fact? If you are, that would be an incredibly weak position to take.

Now, philosophical naturalists have little or no experience of being part of a small converted community and I would move lack understanding of them.

Whether that is true or not, it has no bearing on whether the resurrection is/is not an historical fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

Whether conversion claims are true or not would depend on whether there is enough evidence for such claims, and n the case of the resurrection, the evidence is decidedly weak.

And given that the claim itself is extraordinary, unprecedented and, evidence suggests, physiologically impossible then the evidence would also need to be extraordinarily strong for claim to be given any credence.

And yet the 'evidence' comprises no more than 'someone said it happened' - and the person reporting someone else's claimed experience is writing decades after the claimed occurrence with a lack of clarity over who they are, the link with the original person and the extent to which their writing has been doctored over time (noting that the earlier extant version we have are decades later).

And even the claims themselves have far more likely explanations that dead person suddenly becomes not dead.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Except, of course, conversion is exceptionally rare. So in the UK (and other countries are similar) virtually everyone who is an adherent of a religion (and therefore may believe the faith claims of that religion) was brought up in that religion as a child and therefore brought up to believe those faith claims. Of the rest most were brought up as adherents of a different religion and then may have shifted religion, but still have an upbringing with an expectation that faith claims are to be believed.

So where exactly is the 'conversion' as in pretty well all cases a specific religion (or at least religion) is baked into that person from birth through upbringing.

If you are actually interested in conversion then the place to look is the huge numbers of people brought up religious who then 'convert' to being non religious and/or atheist. That accounts for pretty well 50% of people brought up in a religious manner. That involves people brought up to believe the faith claims of christianity and yet, as adults, when they are able to analyse those claims in a more objective and mature manner ... err ... reject them.

I don't know why you are bringing up a christianity 2000 years after the event when we are talking about Christianity in it's earliest stages. Conversions may be rarer now but they weren't then. Christianity garners converts from a range of other faiths.

After the period of evangelical expansion, professing Christianity, while not acting it out to ensure social status becomes the norm. Then as it has flagged and become ecclesiastical and traditional, evangelical revivals have occurred.

Not sure this is quite the thread for your theory of conversion which reads in part like a huge argumentum ad populum.
I will cheerfully discuss conversion with you on another thread
Perhaps so you can amaze us with your profile of the Daveyan convert.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

And given that the claim itself is extraordinary, unprecedented and, evidence suggests, physiologically impossible then the evidence would also need to be extraordinarily strong for claim to be given any credence.

And yet the 'evidence' comprises no more than 'someone said it happened' - and the person reporting someone else's claimed experience is writing decades after the claimed occurrence with a lack of clarity over who they are, the link with the original person and the extent to which their writing has been doctored over time (noting that the earlier extant version we have are decades later).

And even the claims themselves have far more likely explanations that dead person suddenly becomes not dead.

But I don't think you quite understand what a conversion is.
It is not merely intellectual consent but encounter with Christ and response . One believes that one's sin has been forgiven, there is the recognition of one's state of sin and that God has provided the answer. Christ's death and resurrection is commensurate with all that. Basically no one is a convert until they have experienced this.

No. Reading what people say, they do not have any historical evidence to counter gospel and epistiolatory evidence.
In fact frequently the New Testament sources are ignored because of what amounts to a genetic fallacy about Christians but definitely apriori objections to the concept of miracle in which the proponent rather than believing that these are rare suspensions of the usual believes this kind of thing goes on all the time.

So your position becomes a wager based on probability at best and suspension of the issue of induction which also doesn't takes no account of one's existential realisation.

As Paul ventured, if Christ was not raised we are all quite dead in our sin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Whether conversion claims are true or not would depend on whether there is enough evidence for such claims, and n the case of the resurrection, the evidence is decidedly weak.

None of which addresses the point that the resurrection is/isn't an historical fact and hence has little significance to the point I am raising. Or are you saying that because certain communities believed that x took place, then x must be an historical fact? If you are, that would be an incredibly weak position to take.

Whether that is true or not, it has no bearing on whether the resurrection is/is not an historical fact.

Being a convert to intellectual belief in the resurrection is not necessarily the same as being converted to christianity.

Someone may look at the gospel and epistolary evidence and evidence of the early Christian community and conclude that there is no smoke without fire. Another may be convicted that their existential position is due to a spiritual encounter with a Jesus who was supposed to have been dead and buried centuries ago and resurrection is commensurate with that and there is no contemporary contradicting evidence.

Both these are converts to different things I would move.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Professional training in tested medical science can also equip people to deal with the delusional...

No. The consensus is that within a hundred years or so of the purported events that there were believing communities across the Middle-East - the presence of those communities no more validates the claims of a magical Jesus than the presence of Scientologists supports the contention that Xenu's space-faring DC-10s are an historical fact.
 
But there is insufficient evidence of the 'historians' consensus' that you claim.

You don't need to be part of something to understand it. You don't need to accept it to understand it.

O.

I'm only aware of mass psychiatric concern about religious belief in totalitarian States. Your post is therefore avowedly Stalinist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The word "genuine" there is tautological. Yes, it is true that early Christians believed that Jesus rose from the dead. That doesn't mean he actually did.

You're on the science and technology board. Dead people cannot come alive again. The end.

But that isn't proper popperian science is it Jeremy?, it doesn't deal with the issue of induction.

[Gordon]

But that isn't proper popperian science is it Jeremy?, it doesn't deal with the issue of induction.

Why do think induction is a problem when it comes to dead people not staying dead?

[ProfessorDavey]

But that isn't proper popperian science is it Jeremy?, it doesn't deal with the issue of induction.

What do you mean by 'induction' Vlad - don't understand so cannot comment.

[ProfessorDavey]

But I don't think you quite understand what a conversion is.
It is not merely intellectual consent but encounter with Christ and response .

So how come the only people 'converted' - using your definition are those brought up to believe the in the faith claims of christianity. Surely if 'conversion' is as you say then everyone, regardless of their upbringing, would be equally ripe to this encounter. That they aren't suggests one of the following:

1. Jesus ignores people who aren't cradle christians
2. The faith claims of christianity are only believable to those told to believe those stories from childhood
3. An 'encounter' with Jesus is only possible to those who have had that 'suggestion' inculcated from the earliest of ages - in other words not a real, external encounter, but all in the mind of a pre-existing believer.

The first (which is the only one consistent with an actual encounter with Jesus doesn't seem plausible. Firstly as there are occasional, but rare examples, of people not brought up christian converting - did Jesus misunderstand that these people weren't cradle christians, and if not why them and not others. And secondly - surely if Jesus wanted impact he'd largely ignore those brought up in the faith but focus on those who aren't already part way there.

But in the most extreme case this simply never, ever happens - there is no example of a non-contacted community (i.e. a community who will never have encountered people who believe in christian claims) who independently come to that belief. Christianity is always transmitted by people, never directly by god/Jesus. We never see a tribe that has never encountered a christian before discovered to be worshipping Jesus. Why not? If Jesus can communicate directly, why not directly with a non-contacted community in the Amazon - yet never happens.

[ProfessorDavey]

So your position becomes a wager based on probability at best and suspension of the issue of induction which also doesn't takes no account of one's existential realisation.

Still don't understand what you mean by 'suspension of the issue of induction' - please explain.

I would consider a better way to understand this is that some people succumb to suggestion - a deep ingrained believe inculcated in them since birth that the faith claims of christianity are true. And therefore when some life event comes along their response (due to that ingrained suggestibility) is to explain that as an encounter with Jesus. Others having the same experience would explain it in a different manner - maybe even as an encounter with some other purported supernatural entity. But what we are really revealing isn't a real encounter with a real Jesus, but a folding back into ingrained belief based on suggestion.

So an an analogy, if a person had been brought up to believe that the earth was flat and that each night the sun drops below the edge and is extinguished, when they see a glorious sunset their ingrained belief manifested through suggestion will tell them that they are watching the sun go out. They aren't, but suggestion is a very powerful thing.

[Outrider]

I'm only aware of mass psychiatric concern about religious belief in totalitarian States. Your post is therefore avowedly Stalinist.

Luckily for all of us, reality is not limited to solely what you or I are aware of

O.

[Enki]

Being a convert to intellectual belief in the resurrection is not necessarily the same as being converted to christianity.

To me that's not important. I'm simply discussing the historicity of the resurrection.

Someone may look at the gospel and epistolary evidence and evidence of the early Christian community and conclude that there is no smoke without fire. Another may be convicted that their existential position is due to a spiritual encounter with a Jesus who was supposed to have been dead and buried centuries ago and resurrection is commensurate with that and there is no contemporary contradicting evidence.

I'm sure any or all of that may be true. However, this has little bearing as to whether the resurrection was an historical fact.

Both these are converts to different things I would move.

Whatever!

[jeremyp]

But that isn't proper popperian science is it Jeremy?, it doesn't deal with the issue of induction.

I've asked you before what you understand by the word "induction". I don't think you understand it.

Inductive reasoning is central to science. Without it, we can't understand anything about the real world.

Dead people do not come alive again. Literally billions of people have died and there's no credible evidence that any of them came alive again - there's some induction. Furthermore we can observe the effect that being dead has on people's bodies and we observe that being dead for nearly two days turns your brain into an irrecoverable mush.

This is a thread on the science board. Unless you can show the above is wrong by naturalistic means, you lose.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Prof,

What do you mean by 'induction' Vlad - don't understand so cannot comment.

Vlad struggles with understanding many of the terms he attempts. In this case what he means by “the issue of induction” though is the extrapolation of a conclusion on the basis of the past. It’s the black swan problem: the fact of no reliable evidence for a black swan did not mean that a black swan did not exist; the lack of reliable evidence for a resurrection does not mean that a resurrection did not occur.

He's also though lost in a world of the difference between an event and the language used to describe it. Gordon is quite right to say that the resurrection is not a “historical fact”. This is because the terms “historical” and “fact” have meanings that the resurrection narrative fails to satisfy. That’s not to say that there wasn’t a resurrection, and nor that it didn’t happen in the past. It is though to say that currently you cannot use either term to describe it. Furthermore, Vlad’s misunderstanding of the burden of proof is that he thinks that by saying “it’s not a historical fact” Gordon has to show that there was no resurrection. He doesn’t. All he has to show is that the resurrection narrative fails to satisfy the definitional requirements of “fact” and “historical” – a simple thing to do.

As I’m not really here these days I won’t bother with the other fallacies he’s unwittingly crashing through, though his “…/my conversion experience aligns with the Bible story, therefore the Bible is true; the Bible is true/my conversion experience aligns with…” etc ad infinitum is textbook circular reasoning.           

[ProfessorDavey]

Dead people do not come alive again. Literally billions of people have died and there's no credible evidence that any of them came alive again - there's some induction.

And yet Vlad would have us believe that just because someone once wrote (decades after the purported event) that someone else saw a guy who was dead and was then alive, that this is sufficient evidence for a resurrection.

And interestingly - which of the NT 'post-resurrection' appearances are clear that this is a dead guy alive again - certainly not Paul, certainly not the original Mark. Typically the narrative talks of 'appearances' - but literature is littered with ghost appearances, we don't consider these to be resurrections, nor these appearances to be a once dead, but now alive person. Nope these tend to be considered to be appearances of a dead person.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Prof,

Vlad struggles with understanding many of the terms he attempts. In this case what he means by “the issue of induction” though is the extrapolation of a conclusion on the basis of the past. It’s the black swan problem: the fact of no reliable evidence for a black swan did not mean that a black swan did not exist; the lack of reliable evidence for a resurrection does not mean that a resurrection did not occur.

He's also though lost in a world of the difference between an event and the language used to describe it. Gordon is quite right to say that the resurrection is not a “historical fact”. This is because the terms “historical” and “fact” have meanings that the resurrection narrative fails to satisfy. That’s not to say that there wasn’t a resurrection, and nor that it didn’t happen in the past. It is though to say that currently you cannot use either term to describe it. Furthermore, Vlad’s misunderstanding of the burden of proof is that he thinks that by saying “it’s not a historical fact” Gordon has to show that there was no resurrection. He doesn’t. All he has to show is that the resurrection narrative fails to satisfy the definitional requirements of “fact” and “historical” – a simple thing to do.

As I’m not really here these days I won’t bother with the other fallacies he’s unwittingly crashing through, though his “…/my conversion experience aligns with the Bible story, therefore the Bible is true; the Bible is true/my conversion experience aligns with…” etc ad infinitum is textbook circular reasoning.           

Unfortunately Gordon's full assertion was not only is it not historical fact, but that the resurrection is myth and story.
Gordon does not mention the word narrative but is talking about the resurrection itself.
That is as plain as anything.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've asked you before what you understand by the word "induction". I don't think you understand it.

Inductive reasoning is central to science. Without it, we can't understand anything about the real world.

Dead people do not come alive again. Literally billions of people have died and there's no credible evidence that any of them came alive again - there's some induction. Furthermore we can observe the effect that being dead has on people's bodies and we observe that being dead for nearly two days turns your brain into an irrecoverable mush.

This is a thread on the science board. Unless you can show the above is wrong by naturalistic means, you lose.

I don't think you understand the scope of popperian science.
Also, the resurrection is proposed as a miracle in the full knowledge that the normal run of things is suspended.

So part of the non historical objection is based on atheism.