Update: Small changes towards the end to make sure I talk about models of thought and not the people in question.
Update 2: It pains me to say this, but the Thinking Christian has, well, banned me. I've pasted at the bottom a couple of banned responses. I'm very disappointed by this kind of shutting people up - I would never do that myself - but can hardly say I'm surprised.
My comment basically said two things;
1. By changing one of the premises by upping the complexity without defining further premises to define them, you are essentially begging the question. If I am to take the thinking Christian seriously - and, by 'thinking', I am assuming that logic, reason and deeper thinking than what is required for making dinner is involved - then each time something is begging the question, we need to point this out, otherwise these arguments aren't sound. And so I pointed out that in order for Tom (that's the thinking Christian in question) to have a good reason to ridicule Coyne, we must all agree with what omnipotence actually mean in this context. I will go into detail about this a bit later (and Tom asked me to specifically delve into it).
2. Tom used as part of his rhetoric that "Nothing can cause itself." Now, I admit that perhaps my wording here was a bit clumsy, but even if me begging for the logical reason for the argument - even when clumsy - still dives into the problem that believer of a thing that has always existed face as they bring out the everlasting god vs. everything else is caused;
We don't know that everything else is caused.
The usual example in this argument is that the universe had a beginning, therefore someone created it, therefore god. But there is a huge misunderstanding in lay peoples understanding of what this beginning of the universe mean, and the key to this lies in the fact that scientists - when they want to be a bit more precise than when they're on some talk show on TV - call this universe "the known universe." This is important; The word "universe" is what we use for what we see, and, indeed, what we see - mostly light, the bits of matter we can see in our solar system - all of that can be traced back to a common point in time from which their journey started some 13.7 billion years ago, and hence we say that this is the age of the known universe, and that even time might have started here.
But this only that little part of it all that we can see. In fact, we can't see all of it; for the first 380.000 years of the universe the heat was so high that photons couldn't even be created to create light; they would try to bond, and then get shredded apart again by the heavy radiation. It was slightly after those 380.000 years that the universe cooled enough to create light, and from which we could start to see anything. This border between what we can see and what lies beyond is called the radiation microwave background, and it gives us a good map of how the universe - the known universe - further evolved, but is quite out of scope for this post.
However, we - and I mean scientists, of course - can calculate back into those 380.000 years using powerful computers and simulators, all the way back through the slowing and expansion of the known universe and the inflation, all the way to a few Planck constants after the Big Bang (which didn't bang), but not further as our understanding of quantum mechanics break down at this point. Beyond this point we don't know anything, however this is not to say we will never know, only that this is the current limit of our knowledge.
When we consider that the universe is made up with positive and negative energy, and after weighing the universe - again, the known universe - and accounting for all that is in it, we are left with the fabulously funky concept that the total energy of the known universe is precisely 0. Zero. Nothing. But more on that later when we talk about whether something can come from nothing.
Quick aside, though, as this whole section stands as an answer to another commenter JAD who said "Again, there is nothing logically contradictory about the premise “that Something has always existed.”" Yes, you're right. However, the point admittedly clumsily made was that Christians refuse to give anything but their god the privilege to having always existed, like matter, energy, empty space, or the universe - as opposed to the more popular known universe - and they refuse this not because it isn't plausible or logical, but because they don't like it or don't agree with it. Anyway, onwards. The theory (and the facts of) the known universe says nothing about the materials that were used in the formation of it, but we can make a pretty good case that there is stuff there that have always existed. But we don't know.
Tom says; " I think you, like Dr. Coyne, would likely say that you place a high value on evidence."
And I dare say that all of us place a high value on evidence. Saying otherwise would be philosophical sophistry. Would you drink Mercury? No, because evidence tells us you'll simply die. We all use evidence all the time, from walking out your door, surviving the landscape, interacting with the universe, and trying to grasp notice of what happens in it. I think it's probably fair to say that we all value evidence equally much, but that some of us are happy to replace evidence with faith when evidence interfere with our world view and / or preconceived notions.
We need to be clear about this; everything that enters the scientific consensus is by any practical means true. The only way to shift the truth-value is to produce counter evidence. (Btw, science is quite happy to accept counter evidence. In fact, all good science that are part of the consensus was at some time counter evidence. But I digress) We need to treat the laws of physics and biology and cosmology and chemistry as proven to be true, because if you don't, the onus is on you to come up with that lovely counter evidence. Being a kook or dream up an insane (but internally logical) platform of knowledge may work for the kook in question, but evidence is rooted in the concept of testing and re-testing the data to increasingly ridiculously rigid levels (and I mean that in a good way; those levels are ridiculously high for us normal lay folks, but in science they are the norm) to be agreed by consensus.
There are many problems to address here. I'll start with what Tom clarified in a further comment: "Given the hypothesis “The God of Christian theism exists,” and given the definition of God that comes with that ex hypothesi, can you defend Coyne’s position that such a God ought to be regarded as potentially being able to commit divine suicide?" This was his point A, with a direct follow-up question point B giving the context of the post itself, basically asking "Can the Christian god of Alvin Plantinga commit suicide?"
The answer is, unsurprising to many but mostly surprising to Christians, "why not?" Theology is a funny thing in that one can pick and choose from thousands of years of religious thinking about all sorts of issues, including suicide. Traditionally, suicide was regarded the ultimate sin for Catholic reasons (Aquinas and confession of sin before death), but lots of people (including Augustine) would argue that it's a sin because it violates the sixth commandment.
But hang on a minute; the call to arms on the believing side is that their god cannot sin (it is illogical for their god to sin), therefore suicide is ruled out. But how? Where in the Bible does it say that suicide is a sin? It seems that the commandments - vague as they are on this topic - were rules written for man, not for god; even the most cursory reading of the bible will give you plenty of examples of this god killing people or having people killed in his name for a host of different reasons as he see fit. William Lane Craig is on record for proposing (and believing) that divine command theory makes anything god wishes and orders to be good, even if we mere humans might find it distasteful. Is that the yard-stick on our topic as well? Killing doesn't seem to be something god has an automatic, all-encompassing problem with, as opposed to, say, picking sticks for firewood on the sabbath, or taunt some guy because he's bald (god killed the stick-picker and 42 children for the taunting, although this is admittedly low-hanging fruit). I think I could make a case that ‘Biblical morality’ is situational, based on the arbitrary whims of Yahweh, so why couldn't he whim a suicide?
But all of this is of course context but besides the point. More to the point is, have Tom got any reason for why god can't? I know the concept seems rather absurd for a Christian as they've been told all their lives that god is love and all life is sacred and god is love and everlasting and so on, but is there something concrete to point to? Suicide isn't mentioned in the bible as such (although there are people who die at the hands of actions they themselves started), and I can make a case that the tale of Samson's demise can stand as an example of an approved suicide. If the conditions are right, why not?
There's various quotations about gods eternity, of course, and the everlasting love, which indeed suggest that he's at least planned to hang around for a very long time. However, that doesn't say can't, only a won't. And that was my point; your god can't do something? Or just won't do something? And then, if the question gets answered, we move to biblical morality, but more on that later.
(Update: Tom didn't say this, Doug did)
Commenter Doug moves to a further comment: "I find it curious that Alexander references “arguments” (plural), when the neo-atheist arguments typically boil down to one:
1. If God exists, his primary concern would necessarily be to justify His existence to me (since I, the Rational Man [tm], demand it).
2. Inexplicably, God declines to play by my rules and jump through my hoops (to be known hereafter as “evidence”).
3. Therefore, God does not exist."
Commenter Doug moves to a further comment: "I find it curious that Alexander references “arguments” (plural), when the neo-atheist arguments typically boil down to one:
1. If God exists, his primary concern would necessarily be to justify His existence to me (since I, the Rational Man [tm], demand it).
2. Inexplicably, God declines to play by my rules and jump through my hoops (to be known hereafter as “evidence”).
3. Therefore, God does not exist."
You know what I find curious? The sentence preceding the above reads "But my question to Alexander was of a different nature, addressing the unstated atheist preference: not for a definition per se but for a definition they like." and yet ... and yet, there are proclaims that all atheist arguments boil down to the one he wrote above.
The curious part is the double-standard. Isn't it obvious to you (ie. Christians in this debate) that you yourself are giving us a definition that you like to swat? That argument up there? It isn't mine. This is called "building a straw-man", where you dream up an argument you think your opponent have, or, at least, hope he has, and then easily burn it down because it's flawed, stupid and not really all that good. I don't really need to point out that it's a stupid argument, because, well, you made it so. It exist in your head, not in the real world.
So, let's look at the real world, which, incidentally, is a fun way to summarize the only argument atheists, in fact, do make;
"1. There is no scientific evidence for a god. 2. Therefore, there probably isn't any god."
Packed into that is of course also the finer point of science and probabilities (it seems a lot of misinformed people out there took Richard Dawkins to task last week or so for saying, er, exactly what he's been saying for years and years and written a whole book about. Oh, the irony!), but it essentially comes down to one thing; evidence. And that we talked about at the very top of this post, so I won't reiterate my stance on that again.
JAD further writes something, well, interesting: "Why should I accept an eternally existing universe over an eternally existing transcendent Mind (God)? Which is the better explanation?"
Right. Which is the better explanation. Better. Explanation. At this point it is tempting to throw up my arms and just bail out, but I'll use it as a parting comment.
The question itself is easy enough to answer: "Because truth matters." It's not my problem if people like to believe things for whatever reason - like comfort, bliss, support, need and so on - as long as those beliefs don't affect the lives of others. If you can't grasp this argument, then imagine that your country was run by a militant Jainist (there's a hysterical joke in this definition if you care to look it up) and all meat eating was banned and ants had rights to eat your house over you getting rid of them. If nothing else, I believe strongly that we must adhere to the secular state as the only state in which we all can have freedom of religious belief (and if you think otherwise, then you shouldn't have the right to complain about other opinions, no matter how different from yours they might be; we share this world, and we are different, and none of that is going to change).
But dear Jad (and others who might be lost in this model of thought); there are glaring problems here. You don't mean "eternally existing transcendent Mind", you mean the Christian god of Yahveh who is jealous of other non-existent gods, who gets angry, who smites, interferes in the discourse of men, tells people to kill their own, is a gambler with people's lives as tokens in his play,who has a son who is also himself (and not), and kills himself as a scapegoat for others so that others can - by mere thinking that this event happened the way it did and where the players were exactly who they claimed to be - get to a different non-physical place with non-physical bodies called heaven where there's going to be singing and praising for all eternity to this transcendent mind that started it all and knew all along what would happen. Oh, and he can do anything, except those things the believers in this story find unfitting in their model of thought.
That god, that Yahveh of the talking bush and virgin birth and killing babies of peoples he didn't approve of, the god that orders an unskilled person to build a boat so big as to defy biological facts and physical laws of nature, the god of having a personal relationship with everyone except those he doesn't, who loves all except those he don't - That is the god we're talking about here. (Update: First comment on the post pointed out that it was a bit attacking. Well, this section about Yahveh is not meant to be attacking at all; it is meant to bring the actual properties of that specific god into a discussion that far to often diverts into a wishy-washy definition of what a god is. I've re-worded some of this to make that clearer.)
Let's not lose sight of what the consequences of your belief is. Your god is not some vague ethereal mind that cannot be defined and must remain in the mysterious space of transcendent mumbo-jumbo of avoidance like some New Age hippie definition of love that always win wars or whatever, man. Talking philosophy and reason and logic is all good and well, and is often a wonderful tool in sussing out a model from which truth can spring, but I don't think you have completely honest intentions of following the truth wherever they may lead you (ie. change your model of epistemology based on a different model of epistemology that may or may not be better than yours at defining truth and scrutiny), and so the danger of bringing in this New Age version of god is a testament to the undefined, to the flaky thought-through concepts that you build your argument on. I'm not saying this as a criticism of your god nor your beliefs, I'm pointing out that when we place our arguments the premises needs to be rooted in reality rather than making it some thought experiment that only has validity in our imagination. This is why I keep focusing on sophistry (as a challenge, mind you) and the fact that I too often see double-standards wherever you call up logic and reason. Sure, you can create logically consistent arguments within your model of thought itself - so can the guy in the asylum down the road who thinks he's Jesus or Napoleon or Elvis - but it is directly incompatible with science, as referenced at the beginning of this post. And when that happens, well, evidence is really what matters; how else are we to determine what is true if not for a joint subjective process of tests, results and basic epistemology?
Have evidence? Then bring it; surely a few thousand years should be enough to dig up at least a smidgen of something that claims to be such an integral part of everything. Bring it because it is important. We all value the truth, and we all should follow the truth wherever it takes us, but we need to be very honest about our knowledge and our epistemology. Convincing the unbelievers of something so fantastic and integrated into everything should be easy, and yet it seems it is not. Any miracle would do. Even plausibility would do.
Otherwise it's just our opinion. Opinions are, well, interesting and worth listening to, but at some point those opinions need to have some connection with either reality or some other person who has her own opinions. Our arguments are sharing opinions, and the more we can link it to objective logic, the easier it is for the other party to accept them as true. Beliefs are opinions sometimes shared with others. You might ask at this point if there is any harm in false beliefs, for which the best answer I've heard (from Red Neck, Blue Collar, Atheist) is "I believed the gun was empty."
Update2 : Banned comments
Two replies that didn't make it through. One to Tom, another to Rodrigues.
@Tom:"In other words, you blew off the answer that was on the table for discussion. Totally ignored it."
No, I actually addressed it. Poorly. First time in the comment right after you gave your answer, the very next comment. It has to be said that it wasn't an "ok, I get what you say now" answer, I was distracted by the focus on proposition #4 for your original answer.
My answer in #73 was a summary of my problems with the propositions, not a direct dealing with your answer. It wasn't that I had ignored you, and I certainly didn't mean to skip a beat in the flurry of comments; I was re-stating why it is a problem, but more importantly, I stated in my objection five (building on 3 and 4) that as a springboard for talking about things that can be caused or not (as Melissa pointed out), causation needs to get a better treatment if the propositions can be used for our discussion. Yes, I should perhaps have clarified better what I meant here (and would had anyone asked) about various definitions for causality (ie. Aristotlian, Humean, etc. in philosophy vs. causality as meant in physics). The causality for a finite universe is obvious, but not so for an infinite one. I was waiting for why the unmoved mover was an acceptable one, and not nature.
You then move to the "non-reply" comment, which was my response to Melissa's "I was going to reply to most of your objections but [...]" where she says that it's addressed elsewhere, and btw number 5 is wrong. If she's not responding to the eight objections, then that's a non-reply. Not no reply, but a reply that doesn't really reply much, or, a clumsy way of saying I was hoping for more. But again, I can see how that snowballed another poorly lit hill.
In the very next comment you say "Melissa referenced that. You’ve ignored it", but I didn't ignore it. I had addressed it. Not in an admittedly perfect way, that is for sure, but claiming I had ignored it is, well, not true, and certainly not by intent.
But I'll say this: The weird part is that I've dealt with all the way back to beginning with talking about the origin of the universe on my blog - the very definition of the universe, the known universe, the all-encompassing universe; three different universes that we need to figure out before we go on, to which you replied (for Doug, which he agreed with) that it is the known universe. Ever since then I've tried to explain that the four propositions are then irrelevant when you want to talk about the supernatural which comes in as soon as you make claims about it (this friggin' universe) needing to be caused. This is the main thrust of my objection, and as far as I can tell from reading through the comments, still not addressed.
With the definition of universe you gave you are giving special privileges on your god to be uncaused which you are not willing to allow for *any* version of the universe. From here we ventured into your four objections for why the universe can't be uncaused, so this whole flashback scene was a bit of a surprise. But here we are, and that's that.
@Rodrigues: "At any rate, for someone who directed "Oh my, how ridiculously stupid this is getting. I can’t tell you how much expletive juices are bubbling up through my spline in frustration, but; Yes, really, really, really, Really!" at Doug -- this is just an example, others could be gathered -- methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black (not that it excuses me in anyway)."
So, did I call anyone anything? Was I personalizing anything there, except expressing my own feelings of the situation, and using Doug's *own* words back at him as stylistic effect? Did I call him ignorant? Was it condescending? No, it was pure frustration on display, *my* frustration. I come into the debate with an agnostic attitude, explaining in fine details that we (the human collective known as science) don't know for sure a whole lot of stuff, that I myself am agnostic and don't know a lot of stuff, and then - as if this is a surprise, and changes the game somehow - being called out as an agnostic.
Now, as far as frustration goes, yes, perhaps I could have phrased it differently, but I've not attacked the person or implied anything bad about Doug (if nothing else I can say in hindsight he's been one of the nicer ones). I stated that "this" is getting stupid, "this" being this whole "debate", this frustration being an example of what I see as a lack in my opponents to make any effort towards understanding what I'm saying. I've stated several times through this rigmarole my agnostic leanings, and later I'm being accused of being one? There's no way of getting through here; damned if I do, damned if I don't.
Update2 : Banned comments
Two replies that didn't make it through. One to Tom, another to Rodrigues.
@Tom:"In other words, you blew off the answer that was on the table for discussion. Totally ignored it."
No, I actually addressed it. Poorly. First time in the comment right after you gave your answer, the very next comment. It has to be said that it wasn't an "ok, I get what you say now" answer, I was distracted by the focus on proposition #4 for your original answer.
My answer in #73 was a summary of my problems with the propositions, not a direct dealing with your answer. It wasn't that I had ignored you, and I certainly didn't mean to skip a beat in the flurry of comments; I was re-stating why it is a problem, but more importantly, I stated in my objection five (building on 3 and 4) that as a springboard for talking about things that can be caused or not (as Melissa pointed out), causation needs to get a better treatment if the propositions can be used for our discussion. Yes, I should perhaps have clarified better what I meant here (and would had anyone asked) about various definitions for causality (ie. Aristotlian, Humean, etc. in philosophy vs. causality as meant in physics). The causality for a finite universe is obvious, but not so for an infinite one. I was waiting for why the unmoved mover was an acceptable one, and not nature.
You then move to the "non-reply" comment, which was my response to Melissa's "I was going to reply to most of your objections but [...]" where she says that it's addressed elsewhere, and btw number 5 is wrong. If she's not responding to the eight objections, then that's a non-reply. Not no reply, but a reply that doesn't really reply much, or, a clumsy way of saying I was hoping for more. But again, I can see how that snowballed another poorly lit hill.
In the very next comment you say "Melissa referenced that. You’ve ignored it", but I didn't ignore it. I had addressed it. Not in an admittedly perfect way, that is for sure, but claiming I had ignored it is, well, not true, and certainly not by intent.
But I'll say this: The weird part is that I've dealt with all the way back to beginning with talking about the origin of the universe on my blog - the very definition of the universe, the known universe, the all-encompassing universe; three different universes that we need to figure out before we go on, to which you replied (for Doug, which he agreed with) that it is the known universe. Ever since then I've tried to explain that the four propositions are then irrelevant when you want to talk about the supernatural which comes in as soon as you make claims about it (this friggin' universe) needing to be caused. This is the main thrust of my objection, and as far as I can tell from reading through the comments, still not addressed.
With the definition of universe you gave you are giving special privileges on your god to be uncaused which you are not willing to allow for *any* version of the universe. From here we ventured into your four objections for why the universe can't be uncaused, so this whole flashback scene was a bit of a surprise. But here we are, and that's that.
@Rodrigues: "At any rate, for someone who directed "Oh my, how ridiculously stupid this is getting. I can’t tell you how much expletive juices are bubbling up through my spline in frustration, but; Yes, really, really, really, Really!" at Doug -- this is just an example, others could be gathered -- methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black (not that it excuses me in anyway)."
So, did I call anyone anything? Was I personalizing anything there, except expressing my own feelings of the situation, and using Doug's *own* words back at him as stylistic effect? Did I call him ignorant? Was it condescending? No, it was pure frustration on display, *my* frustration. I come into the debate with an agnostic attitude, explaining in fine details that we (the human collective known as science) don't know for sure a whole lot of stuff, that I myself am agnostic and don't know a lot of stuff, and then - as if this is a surprise, and changes the game somehow - being called out as an agnostic.
Now, as far as frustration goes, yes, perhaps I could have phrased it differently, but I've not attacked the person or implied anything bad about Doug (if nothing else I can say in hindsight he's been one of the nicer ones). I stated that "this" is getting stupid, "this" being this whole "debate", this frustration being an example of what I see as a lack in my opponents to make any effort towards understanding what I'm saying. I've stated several times through this rigmarole my agnostic leanings, and later I'm being accused of being one? There's no way of getting through here; damned if I do, damned if I don't.
And the comparative evidence for Jesus is better than almost any other contemporary and some established rulers who lived later. For instance, these quote on the historical Jesus are on point:
http://compassioninpoliti
Also, much of our history books is written "after-the-event." Does writing about 9/11 or any of our military invasions of the past 15 to 25 years mean that I can't speak to their historical. Also, that historical scholarship happened in a different manner during the life of Christ doesn't mean that its invalid--that erases history rather than uncovering it.
The apostles were eyewitnesses. Also, we don't need an eyewitness to demonstrate the truth of an event.
And dollars to donuts I would bet that Gary Habermas has better historical groundings than this essay-esque piece.
As for examining the nature of the historical evidence, Greenleaf at Harvard University did a pretty extensive job of looking at the evidence from the perspective of a judge in a court room--a pretty high standard.
http://y-jesus.com/blog/s
Try looking for Bart Ehrman (http://en.wikipedia.org/
Btw, your first link is just a terrible page, even trying to quote-mine Einstein for the cause (something Einstein himself actually wrote about ... why not quote that?), and goes a long way quoting the worst apologetics book I've ever had the displeasure of reading, Case for Faith and the equally bad Case for Jesus. How far are you willing to overlook the *actual* inadequates of historicity? How much serious non-biased scholarship are you willing to overlook?
Oh, and Greenleaf? Really? Apologetics based on law "practice" from 165 years ago, that's your medicine?
Sorry, you are a very biased apologetic trying to claim hear-say as evidence, but actual *evidence* for Jesus being real - and even less that Jesus ever actual said the sermon in question - is simply thin, vague and non-existent.
Kudos for your quick response as well. CS Lewis, Alister McGrath, and Greenleaf all fall into the category of converting from atheism or skeptic to Christian. Lee Strobel, Francis Collins, Hilary Putnam, and Mortimer J Adler did as well. Admittedly, Strobel's criticism of darwin may be off, but he's not an unintelligent guy.
Barts argument primarily hinges on the problem of pain, but thats a rather simplistic indict of the Christian faith (although more convincing than anything I've heard from the New Atheists who have trafficked in overgeneralization, stereotype, and received criticism from their own groups)
The evidence of a historical Jesus is comparative with other contemporaries (see the list of quotes).
On the issue of non-biased literature, most of its "biased" on both sides. And bias alone is not reason to overlook it--again that would leave us without literature to debate from (also the list of conversions above suggests a lack of bias in their assessment--in fact Adler, Putnam, and McGrath are all philosophers who are grounded in the fundamentals of argument and logic). And certainly the agnostics of the day, did cite Jesus, even if they did so at a later date.
As to reducing all of Ehrmans books down to "the problem of pain" is ridiculous, you really don't *want* to know if that's your take on it.
As to Jesus historicity of other contemporary characters from history, I again want to ask you for actual historians making the claim, not from heavily biased religious people. And also a pointer to why, say, Augustus (which is the normal example the religious bring out) have less or equal historic pizzazz than Jesus, again using normal historical criteria.
As to bias, you're forgetting that "the other side" isn't an other side from yours alone; we just simply look for things that are evidence-based. We in the evidence camp just happen to lump you in with all the other thousands of religions and conspiracy theorists and myths, and you need to convince us that your claims stand out on better epistemic grounds than the others of that large group. And so far you're not doing too well, that's all.
By all means, have your faith. But for you to claim it to be true, you need evidence, you need it rooted in proper epistemology. Everything else is just opinion, hear-say and - well - faith.
I'm not being fair to Ehrman--I meant to say his original disbelief or conversion rested primarily on the problem of pain or at least thats what he said in the debate I watched.
In terms of the other side, I have watched a number of scholars debate the issue. So, yes, I've listened to the other side. I've also read a decent amount online on mainstream atheist sites. I probably should read more.
Also, comparative evidence that subsumes your criticism:
“The contradictions [in the gospels] are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthiers–e.g., Hammurabi, David, Socrates–would fate into legend.”
–Will Durant in the second volume of the History of Civilization
Where's the evidence? Actual evidence? You know, from actual historians and neutral scholars?
If you haven't got it, stop making truth-claims; you are epistemologically challenged.
Also, the majority vs. minority text distinction seem to answer most of textual criticisms beef along with Ehrmans beef:
http://www.ecclesia.org/t
Discrepancies can be resolved.
After listening to more of Ehrmans' speech on Misquoting Jesus, his arguments hardly consider that the core message is preserved. One example he gives is "as it says in Isaiah" vs. "as it says in the prophets." Thats hardly a big difference. Further, there are various ways of getting at meaning, even if the transcription or translation is in error.
Also the Durant quote does two things:
1. Historical Jesus compared to other people in history.
2. Speaks to supposed discrepencies (differences)
Additionally, James Kennedy's analysis is pretty compelling (he also points out that 3 Jewish historians/scholars reference Jesus):
“There are, very clearly, at least nineteen early pagan writers who refer to Jesus Christ as an actual, real-life, historical figure: Tacitus, a great historian of Rome; Suetonius, also a historian; Pliny the Younger, one of the leaders of the Roman Empire; Epictetus; Lucian; Aristides; Galenus; Lampridius; Dio Cassius; Emeritus; Annianus (or Anianus); Marcellinu; Eunapius; and Zosimus. Some wrote entire works about Jesus, such as Lucian, Celsus (the first great antagonist, who wrote a whole book attacking Christianity), Porphyry, Hieracles, and Julian the Apostate (p. 75)
–D. James Kennedy, doctorate in comparative religions from New York University, Skeptics Answered: Handling Tough Questions About the Christian Faith, 1997
" I don't need to have declarations of war to prove various international conflicts took place"
No, but you must admit, they would be helpful? Actual documents are always better than hear-say and references to them. The closer to the event it is, the better.
"the majority vs. minority text distinction seem to answer most of textual criticisms beef along with Ehrmans beef"
No, they simply don't, and saying so is to not understand what that distinction mean (http://en.wikipedia.org/
"his arguments hardly consider that the core message is preserved"
Nate, not even Christians agree on what core message is preserved. There's 38.000 Christian denominations in the world; do the math.
"Also the Durant quote does two things: 1. Historical Jesus compared to other people in history. 2. Speaks to supposed discrepencies (differences)"
Yes, and it does it really badly. What's your point?
About James Kennedy, plenty are pointing out the bizarre claims he make, even bizarre by Christian scholars; http://www.infidels.org/l
Kennedy is also an apologist. When we look into basic historic research and his stance on it, say on Josephus, the fraud that Christians propose as real is simply presented as such, even when it is demonstrably a forgery. WTF? This isn't serious rebuke; this is blind faith.
You can list a whole bunch of names like that, but what do these people say? If 100 people through antiquity writes about claims of the reality of Greek or Roman gods and heros, does that make them true? Then, why not? All of the people listed writes about Jesus in the past tense, descriptive of the followers who make claim about their leader, and the three best sources are all at a minimum 40 years after the event (!!). There's no contemporary writings, none at all, zilch, nothing. If all the dead of Jerusalem were awakened and wandering the streets on the day Jesus died, why are there no contemporary writings of such an incredible event? The answer is rather obvious.
1. tone and style (ie the language he used)
2. the science issues (ie the reviewer was a paleontologist).
He didn't seem to take issue with the history portion of the book specifically or the groundings of those specific arguments.
To be fair, my linking to the Ecclessia was a little premature--my main point is that statistical consistency could be used to attain a manuscript which was generally trustable.
Most Christian faiths would fit into the following categories, although I'm sure you could easily double the size of the list:
1. Catholicism
2. Baptist
3. Lutheranism
4. Methodist
5. Prespyterianism
6. Anabaptism
7. Church of Christ
8. Nondenominational
9. Anglicanism
Differences of opinion about faith doesn't invalidate the faith in the same way that differences of opinion about science or history or any other academic subject don't invalidate that area of inquiry.
And your myth argument is answered by:
1. Kennedy
2. Durant
3. the fact that Jesus was fulfillment of hundreds of prophesies in the Old Testament which spoke about his nature
4. other external verifications (including Jewish and atheist/agnostic scholars).
I don't know where you get this--as this refers to Jesus' second coming, not his first:
"If all the dead of Jerusalem were awakened and wandering the streets on the day Jesus died, why are there no contemporary writings of such an incredible event?"
I can't tell you why historians of the time didn't write about it. Its not really my burden of proof to do that. It seem odd, yes. But odd doesn't disprove the 4 lines of argument above. Again, the issue of comparisons to other historical figures like Napolean and Socrates is pretty compelling (sorry, I don't have the Napolean quote on me)
Here's another, from a Christian; http://www.amazon.com/Ske
Again, pure apologetics, no evidence.
Your list of broad categories of Christians doesn't even cover that of my wife, nor of her sister (two different). I think you're trying to make a better case for yourself than reality would suggest.
About all the dead of Jerusalem; Umm, no, don't you know your bible? This is not the second coming (although I'm sure they claim it for that, too), this is Matthew 27:51-53. Enjoy.
"Its not really my burden of proof to do that."
Yes, yes it is. You make a claim about something being true. Prove it. Show us. Give us convincing evidence. One thing to remember in all this is that the absence of evidence very often *is* evidence of absence, even if most apologetics claim otherwise. The reason no one wrote about this event is that it probably didn't happen. The burden of proof is on you.
Anyway, this comment section is well exhausted, and I take my leave as this will not go anywhere but down into your apologetics and theology vs. my rationalism and want of evidence.
Peace be with you and yours. :)
I'm sorry reviews on Amazon by Lonely Girl 014 (or whatever the guys name is) don't even begin to cut the mustard. Why?
1. Specificity. Please refer to my distinctions above. The review from Amazon = fluff and 100% name calling, with zero specific mention of what I'm talking about.
2. Reasons given. If you compare the quote I provided had no warrants or data (aka reasons) in sharp contrast, I provided multiple reasons. Its hard to provided fluffy sweeping criticisms vs. substance.
3. Credentials and Experience. Doctorate in comparative religions from New York University. Also, he is a best seller on Amazon.
Each serves as an independent reason to prefer my evidence over yours. Also, you've yet to provide a real indictment of the Will Durant evidence which establishes history and overarching consistency, except generic name calling (generally "weak").
Oddly the arguments you are using about holes in the historical record is the exact opposite arguments you would make in terms of holes in the geographic record with respect to evolution. I'm not taking a position on that, just pointing out a likely inconsistency in burdens of proof. Also, just like a trial we aren't in a position to do on site interviews or time travel. That it took a particular author until they published their first novel could have any number of reasons which we don't know. The time period between publication and his life is peculiar, but not all that different from non-governmental historical figures of the day.
The whole concept of "your evidence" is terribly and utterly faulty. You don't have it. Referring to James Kennedy is a joke, he's been refuted and corrected so many times over the years, without changing his tune. He's the leader of a church, an apologetic, a true believer, and heavily biased so. His arguments are based not on evidence, but on experience and theology (there's something to be said about both, but it isn't evidence), and that is the way most apologetics work;
1. Something is written in the Bible that must be true (argument).
2. Use other parts of the Bible to prove that the Bible is true (premise, circular argumentation).
3. Find anchors in history, and flog them to death under the pretense that trivial evidence also proves complex evidence (conjecture).
This is faulty thinking. If there is no contemporary writings about Jesus, there simply isn't any, and no amount of retrofitting will change that. The Romans wrote down everything that happened in their empire, everything! But apparently not these most amazing things. And that is *telling*. Jesus simply had no impact in his time beyond his disciples, he wasn't written about or even mentioned anywhere until way after his followers as a group grew to the point of being noted. These are the facts, these are the things we can back by evidence. Everything else is projection, speculation and conjecture which is fine amongst friends, but simply not accepted in a serious examination of evidence.
And not only that, but we're talking about the *historic* Jesus here, and all of the above is as if he truly lived. You don't have evidence of it. There's nothing written about him that makes it more true than stuff written about Achilles; no contemporary accounts from neutral sources, which would be *evidence*. Evidence. That's what this discussion is about. Evidence, no conjecture, speculation, projection, gut feelings and possible scenarios. Evidence. And as such, there isn't any. It's *likely* that there was a Jesus, but no *evidence* of such. It's *likely* he was a preacher and the son of a worker, but no *evidence* of such. It's *possible* that he was crucified by the Romans, but no *evidence* of such a thing happening. It also sounds highly speculative that the dead wandered the streets on the day he died, and there most definitely is no evidence of that.
Either you have evidence for the historicity of Jesus, or you just have to admit that the evidence is lacking and that we're talking about potentials and conjecture. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Finally; "Oddly the arguments you are using about holes in the historical record is the exact opposite arguments you would make in terms of holes in the geographic record with respect to evolution."
What the bloody hell are you talking about? The geological record is chock-a-block full of evidence, from fossils and prints to structure, complexity, compounds, layers and erosion, chemistry and physics (you know; hard to argue against-stuff). And importantly, rocks don't have a bias, and neither does instruments and epistemology. So what hole are you talking about in terms of evolution?
Is this the old "there are no transitional species" canard, because it's a very, very stupid one debunked so many times it's not funny, an argument put out by creationists who don't know crap about what they're arguing against (neither geology nor evolution), and surely you're not that stupid?
I answered the review so extensively because thats your only cited piece of evidence to date [and you really didn't answer any of it--you should have posted the review you were trying reference if I somehow got the author, the quote, or his credibility wrong]. And its borderline silly when compared to you chastising someone who has 10x your knowledge on this issue....10x the experience in research on the issue....and 10x the data (the historical citations of 21 specific authors who wrote about Jesus). You say those authors were biased. Nope. Some of them were pagan writers and some were Jewish--I believe it was 19 of the former and 3 of the later (I'll have to chase down the exact quote for the Jewish historians). Thats 21 pieces of hard evidence of the historical Jesus and you've got goose egg. Sure we're talking about probabilities--but probabilities that swing heavily in my direction--because you've got no counter-evidence.
Further, we could take the issue of eyewitness account in terms of the apostles and think about how they only had something to lose (i.e. life or time in prison) by telling the story of Jesus. Also, why would their story tell both the good and the bad instead of painting an overly rosey picture of what faith was about. Someone who was a snake oil salesman would just have whitewashed the story like so many televangelists, not told about the suffering and imprisonment.
You can't have it both ways. Its not that their aren't transitional forms, it just that as an argumentative choice you are in a double-bind of sorts, either you say odd gaps that I can't explain aren't my fault in one space.....or your concede the 30 year timeframe to history about Jesus isn't that big of a deal. They are functionally very similar gaps or omissions in data followed up by available data.
"I answered the review so extensively", No you didn't. You picked the Amazon shortie rather than the larger review by Martin Wagner of the book, and your refusal to pursue it is telling.
"And its borderline silly when compared to you chastising someone who has 10x your knowledge on this issue"
Oh, brother. Why 10x? Why not 20x? or 3x? And on "this issue"? What issue? One of the many, all of them combined, epistemology (which was the angle I came in on), or none? Your sentences are falling apart.
"the historical citations of 21 specific authors who wrote about Jesus"
And *NONE* of them were contemporary writers. Is this fact really that hard to grapple with? And *ALL* of them write about characters from the past, like Achilles. What is the difference between talking in the past of Jesus and of Achilles? What are they proving to you?
"you've got no counter-evidence"
I think this is at the core of your confusion. I don't need counter-evidence; these are *YOUR* claims. You claim he existed, you claim him to be true. Well, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not second-hand myth-wielding decades after the proposed event.
"issue of eyewitness account"
There's tons to be said on this topic, including all the written materials throughout history that has eye-witness accounts of all sorts of stuff that simply didn't happen. People claim to see weird stuff all the time, so by this logic we must also accept UFOs, conspiracies, ghosts, lephrichorns, fairies, bigfoot, Loch Ness monsters, you name it. They're all eye-witness accounts, and one can argue for what they lose (respect, dignity, honesty, humanity) in the process till the cows come home. It's conjecture, and really, really bad ones at that.
"They are functionally very similar gaps or omissions in data followed up by available data"
They're not even kissing-cousins in relation, you banging on about this proves to me that you have no real idea of what you're talking about. In my last comment I was explicit on the difference between geology and human bias, but to spell it out to you further;
Geological time is measured in millions of years; human time is measured in minutes. 30 years in a society of crap cultural capture is a good billion years in geological comparison. And if you cannot understand this, then you're not after truth, you're after filling your holes in your knowledge with comfort rather than facts.
Also, its multiple eyewitness accounts plus the historical record. These multiple check each other. For instance, in a criminal trial, more witnesses are better than one. While eyewitness accounts may not be perfect, they are one of the best pieces of evidence we have in this context. The same could be said about our grasp on various theories of science from the environment to evolution. The same could be said for our hybrids which may get closer to 90 mph in the near future. They aren't perfect, but for now, they will have to do.
Imperfections in the historical record or eyewitness accounts are not reasons to reject--just reasons to be cautious.
Your author could rightly be criticized for:
1. blatant name calling, which never really calls into question the historical record he draws upon
2. traffiking in conspiracy theory consistent with the Jesus Seminar. Criticism of possible intents is not an indictment.
3. never providing a refutation of the evidence I provided.
I wouldn't be surprised to read his other reviews and find them equally incomplete--and only defensive rather than offensive arguments against the historical arguments outlined in the books he criticizes.
This article refutes the Jesus was a magician book your author attempts to reference: Barry Crawford, Journal of the American Academy of Religion (1979), 321-322 [Its available via Project Muse or universities which have a subscription to the journal.] I would have replied with an actual quote, but the article you linked to only made a passing comment, so I'm responding at the level of your author.
I will admit that geographic time vs. human time is different, but it is the case that modernity put a higher emphasis on time and efficiency than would have been culturally present from AD 30 to AD 60.
This is unfortunately for you your best rebuttal of an argument--but a defensive one at that.
This is like trying to make a historical case from a story told by a cousin of Sally Ride about what space was like, and then written down by that cousins friend. Do you know and realize just how far removed from reality such a chain really is?
I'll leave it at that. It's projection, hear-say and fantasy, but you accept it as truth. However, historians do not.
This in addition to the first 5 or 6 paragraphs of this essay from Clarrie Briese, B.A., Diploma of Criminology (Cantab), A.O., is a former Chief Magistrate (judge)1 of N.S.W., Australia (now retired).
http://creation.com/can-w
And this one is even quicker to read and comparatively better:
http://www.christiancouri
I haven't had the opportunity to read the text, but its available online atArchieve.org and begins on page 15 (the other pages are advertisement & otherwise unnneccessay)
http://www.archive.org/st
This is absolute nonsense, and I dare you to actually read more, including especially early Vedic and classical Greek writings which contain far more complex models of thought on the human condition, and lends themselves easily to also be called better models of ethics. Your comment simply is astoundingly naiive, and perhaps stands as an example of someone who hasn't read much yet claim superiority to the little he has read. I am not impressed.
Anyway, you use and link to creationist sites - the inverse Godwin's law! - and by that siding with certified cooks and irrational crazies, and it's time for me to exit as you're peddling lunacy. I just don't have the time to deal with *that* level of crazy.
Correspondingly, if they were bad, they wouldn't have been so forthcoming about details like Peter's doubts, perhaps even Sauls conversion, or Jesus' struggles with his role on earth before he died.
To answer the second layer of argument. I have read a decent amount of ethics and political philosophy. I don't doubt that these systems may have some value to them. I'm not sure what substance I'm supposed to take away from them. The ideas of grace and forgiveness on the one hand and the Golden rule and living with virtue and character on the other are themes which run through the New Testament and are referenced by social reformers from our Founding Fathers to Ghandi (love & nonviolence) to Martin Luther King.
I'm not sure Godwin would want his name tarnished by an attempt to avoid debate or the attempt to name-call. Thats all your reference does.
No, I did not, I was pointing out the absurdity of the statement. Claiming that "these five witnesses" contain any such thing is a stupid statement (because there is so much other and earlier writing of the sort that can safely be argued to be of an even higher ethical standing) and ignorant (for the lack of knowing about these things). You can call it straw-manning all you like; you use the quote as your argument, and that makes you the same by fiat.
"The ideas of grace and forgiveness on the one hand and the Golden rule and living with virtue and character on the other are themes which run through the New Testament and are referenced by social reformers from our Founding Fathers to Ghandi (love & nonviolence) to Martin Luther King."
And the *same* thing can be said of Vedic writings and of classical Greek writing that both *predates* the new testament. It makes your point moot; The golden rule is not uniquely Jesus, in fact, it is not even uniquely human. I don't why this is so hard for Christians to understand.
"I'm not sure Godwin would want his name tarnished by an attempt to avoid debate or the attempt to name-call. Thats all your reference does."
Godwin knows perfectly well why his name is invoked, and you can ask him, he's still alive and well. However, I said the *inverse* Godwin's law, which you seem unfamiliar with. I'll explain it;
Just like mentioning you-know-who (Godwin's law), linking to creationists material in any religious debate makes it abundantly clear that all rational thought has been thrown to the wind, and further intelligent debate is futile. Rational people are less and less inclined to engage with creationists, simply because they have world-views so far fetched and removed from the real world and science that it makes it impossible to find a middle ground where even logic can stand as a guide. Creationists will proudly and firmly stand on batshit crazy ground and proclaim it to be a virtue of their belief to go against ... well, nature and science and most people everywhere. These are not people who want debate; these are people who think the Earth is 6000 years old. It's simply batshit crazy, and if you don't understand why that is batshit crazy, then why are we having this discussion? Trying to have a rational discussions with people who think the Earth is 6000 years old is pointless. That is what the inverse Godwin's law is all about. If you want to be taken seriously, don't link to batshit crazy people as your argument.