tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post111423784961964137..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Could it be Satan?Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger153125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16378471787555011822012-09-27T16:48:46.077-07:002012-09-27T16:48:46.077-07:00"The took Saturnalia and made it Christmas ....."<i>The took Saturnalia and made it Christmas ...</i>"<br /><br />Christmas is *not* a baptized Saturnalia. December 25 was chosen as the "official" date of Jesus' birth for <i>Jewish</i> reasons, not for pagan reasons, and not to wean converts from paganism.<br /><br />Besides which, Saturnalia was a <i>Roman</i> celebration, and the Roman were always a thin minority in their empire. The early Christians were Jews and Greeks. neither of whom celebrated Saturnalia.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38317778520249927272012-09-27T16:41:23.829-07:002012-09-27T16:41:23.829-07:00"In the rigorous sense of, say, mathematical ..."<i>In the rigorous sense of, say, mathematical proof, no. But historical epistemological considerations are different in kind than scientific ones.</i>"<br /><br />People really ought to get over this false trope. 'To prove' simply means to test something by the appropriate metric or criterion.<br /><br />One doesn't prove a new automobile design by subjecting it to mathematical equations, one proves it by physically driving it on a proving ground.<br /><br />Likewise, one doesn't prove that there lived a man named Jesus of Nazareth, son of Joseph, by chasing after the impossible standard asserted by selective hyper-skeptics, who then wave their dainty little hands to dismiss all the evidence. One proves that Jesus existed by means of the same criteria which proves that Julius Caesar or Euripides lived.<br />Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72006369760104039552012-09-27T15:50:56.326-07:002012-09-27T15:50:56.326-07:00i'm skeptical:
It seems to me like at this po...i'm skeptical:<br /><br />It seems to me like at this point we're just spinning around the same points and going back and forth. I don't really see this producing any more useful things. So how's about we just call it a day, so to speak? If you want, you can check out some of the stuff I recommended, and I'll see if I have time to check out whatever you might recommend. Sound good?Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59409667146088146302012-09-27T15:39:07.099-07:002012-09-27T15:39:07.099-07:00"I am not sure that I fully agree with this p..."I am not sure that I fully agree with this part. Have you heard of the Two powers in Heaven heresy? Also, it is my belief that certain concepts like an eternal hell for the wicked and Satan as God's arch-nemesis come from the influence of Persian religious ideas, encountered during Babylonian captivity, as well as Greek philosophy. Second Temple Judaism did not exist in a vacuum."<br /><br />Yeah, I'm aware of the theories about Satan having been an import from Zoroastrianism. They're interesting, but I'm not sure I'm convinced. In any case, they CERTAINLY were not open to the idea of God becoming a man, or worshipping a man, or the resurrection not being something that wouldn't happen at the end of time. And they were, for the major part, strict monotheists. Especially in Northern Palestine, where Christ was from.<br /><br />"Did Socrates exist? As with Jesus, there is no proof."<br /><br />In the rigorous sense of, say, mathematical proof, no. But historical epistemological considerations are different in kind than scientific ones.<br /><br />"But there is evidence in the accounts of various people who knew him (not just Plato). Contrast that with evidence for Jesus. One book."<br /><br />Ahem. Surely you know that the Gospels were written separately and only gathered into the canon we know today quite a good deal later. Even the Q hypothesis - which is somewhat speculative - only accounts for certain recurring themes in the Synoptics. There are different tangents in the Gospels that, even granting that the author of Mark took some information from Q and the authors of Luke and Matthew took stuff from Mark, still are peculiar to the specific Gospels. But again, huge topic.<br /><br />"The gospels were not even written by witnesses to the events, according to the best information available."<br /><br />No, they're the written form of oral traditions that came from people who were - purportedly, at the very least - eyewitnesses. And what is this best information, or people like the author of Luke who either knew eyewitnesses or got the stories from first-hand sources. And what is this best information available that you speak of?<br /><br />And besides, the Gospels are hardly the only things we have to go on. There are the Pauline and other epistles, which in some cases are as close as 15-20 years after the life of Christ. The creed in 1 Corithians 15, for instance, bears mark of being a sort of rabbinical transmission (the whole "what I received I passed on to you" bit), and that at least establishes that there were people 15-20 years after Christ's death that thought He had died, risen from the dead, been seen by witnesses. Does this prove that Christ rose from the dead? No, it doesn't, but it does confirm that not too long after the "supposed" events portrayed in the Gospels, people certainly thought He had, and were worshipping Him. <br /><br />"I can't disagree with that, but the pagans of the Roman empire certainly were not. The Romans established the early church. They turned many of the old pagan holidays into Christian holidays. Ever hear of something called Easter? They introduced many of the legendary stories about the life of Jesus, including things like the virgin birth."<br /><br />Ohhhhhh dude. That's just plain silly. All the Gospels were written AT THE VERY LATEST by the last years of the first century or the first years of the second century, - look it up; that's a fairly uncontroversial fact -, a good 200 years before the Roman Empire officially adopted Christianity. And there are decent reasons to suppose that they were written during the later third of the first century.<br /><br />And yeah, sure, the Church took pagan holidays and made them Christian celebrations. The took Saturnalia and made it Christmas, and so on. But they didn't invent the events they were using the days to celebrate out of whole cloth.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68456022116284114532012-09-27T12:14:38.701-07:002012-09-27T12:14:38.701-07:00Syllabus,
Too much to cover.
Did Socrates exist?...Syllabus,<br /><br />Too much to cover.<br /><br />Did Socrates exist? As with Jesus, there is no proof. But there is evidence in the accounts of various people who knew him (not just Plato). Contrast that with evidence for Jesus. One book. The gospels were not even written by witnesses to the events, according to the best information available.<br /><br />"Carrier, for instance, is an expert in Ancient Greece, not first century ANE culture."<br /><br />That may be the case, but he has written quite a bit about the origins of Christianity. My guess is he did a little research.<br /><br />"reading these pagan elements into the Gospels is a bit spurious."<br /><br />You mean things like the virgin birth? As I understand it, stories like that were a dime a dozen in those days.<br /><br />"However, the first century Jews were pretty hostile to the incursions of pagan ideas."<br /><br />I can't disagree with that, but the pagans of the Roman empire certainly were not. The Romans established the early church. They turned many of the old pagan holidays into Christian holidays. Ever hear of something called Easter? They introduced many of the legendary stories about the life of Jesus, including things like the virgin birth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-38336061203593936502012-09-27T11:39:18.785-07:002012-09-27T11:39:18.785-07:00However, the first century Jews were pretty hostil...<i>However, the first century Jews were pretty hostile to the incursions of pagan ideas.They were strongly monotheistic</i><br /><br />I am not sure that I fully agree with this part. Have you heard of the Two powers in Heaven heresy? Also, it is my belief that certain concepts like an eternal hell for the wicked and Satan as God's arch-nemesis come from the influence of Persian religious ideas, encountered during Babylonian captivity, as well as Greek philosophy. Second Temple Judaism did not exist in a vacuum.<br />Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74483765657166869102012-09-27T10:27:35.734-07:002012-09-27T10:27:35.734-07:00Also, I'd point out that reading these pagan e...Also, I'd point out that reading these pagan elements into the Gospels is a bit spurious. If Christ were, say, an Athenian figure, teaching in the Hellenistic world, then the idea that He was a composite figure might hold some traction, as these things were more acceptable in that world. However, the first century Jews were pretty hostile to the incursions of pagan ideas. They were strongly monotheistic, and vehemently opposed demi-god ideas and other religions in general. Given that the Gospels were written in Jewish milieus - especially Matthew, which is written explicitly to Jews to convince them that Jesus was the Messiah - it's a huge stretch to suppose that they can be read against all these other mystery religions or dying and rising gods or whatever. It would be like me reading, say, Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal against the backdrop of Peter Singer's article that promoted infanticide. It's just the wrong context.<br /><br />Now, even when read against the Jewish backdrop, alternate explanations can be given, and have been given. But at least they're getting the context right.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-12901285745934145822012-09-27T10:14:35.485-07:002012-09-27T10:14:35.485-07:00"I don't remember anything specifically a..."I don't remember anything specifically about Horus, but he does talk about parallels with Osiris and others. I doubt that Jesus was purely mythical, but I think you could make a case for that."<br /><br />If you mean the whole "dying and rising" bit, then I would maintain it's not actually that close. I'd know better how to answer if I knew the exact ones that you're quoting.<br /><br />"Either way, his life story has clearly been embellished with mythical elements."<br /><br />I think that you have to come to the table with methodological naturalism or materialism in order to say something as strong as "clearly". <br /><br />"There is real historical evidence that those people existed."<br /><br />Less so than you might think. Socrates is only really known through the writing of his pupil Plato. The earliest biography of Gautama comes several centuries after his death.<br /><br />"But if you exclude the Bible, the evidence for the existence of Jesus is pretty slim. There is a majority view that he probably existed, but nothing I know of that establishes it as fact."<br /><br />As historians establish such things, it's actually one of the better-established facts about historical persons. But I would also just say that the methodology that historians use to establish such things is different from the methodology that, say, chemists use. Since history is forensic, you can't use strictly empirical methods to establish it. That doesn't make history less reliable, though.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35158653499781106112012-09-27T10:14:16.852-07:002012-09-27T10:14:16.852-07:00"I'm sorry for offending you. I was not t..."I'm sorry for offending you. I was not trying to do that and I wasn't trying to be combative."<br /><br />Fair enough. No harm done. <br /><br />"I noted that the ones you called "excellent minds" were all philosophers or theistic scholars, (not theists) and the others were seen as rambling, inchoate, obtuse, inept."<br /><br />I'm still not sure what you mean when you say "theistic scholars". Would you elaborate on that?<br /><br />And I don't necessarily think that the others ARE inept, rambling, etc. Carrier, for instance, is probably a decent classical historian when it comes to Hellenistic culture, which I understand is his field. I haven't read anything of his in his field, but he's probably not incompetent. His theories on Christ's existence, however, are rather far-fetched. For a treatment of the whole "Jesus myth" idea and whether the Gospels are reliable or not, I would recommend Boyd/Eddy's book The Jesus Legend. And I would further recommend that you examine Carrier's ideas about comparisons, read the comparisons he draws, and then verify the sources themselves. It's often the case with people who draw these comparisons that they stretch the comparisons way too far. But don't take my word for it. Check it out.<br /><br />Similarly, Christopher Hitchens - may he rest in peace - was an excellent journalist and writer. His arguments in god is not Great, however, were less than skilful. His other stuff, like the anthology Arguably, contains some well-argued essays of his. That book, however, was unworthy of him.<br /><br />Richard Dawkins is a decent scientist - though he hasn't actually done much science or published in peer-reviewed journals recently - and a very good science writer. The Selfish Gene was a thoroughly enjoyable book. The God Delusion, however, was torn apart by religious and non-religious people alike for setting up straw men, ranting and the like. Read Terry Eagleton's review of the book to see what I mean. As a science writer, I give Dawkins his props. When he tries to do philosophy or comment on religion, he's just waaaaay out of his depth and makes a thorough mess of things. Still, if he were willing to learn and improve his mistakes, that would be one thing, but he has repeatedly maintained that he has no interest in learning philosophy or sophisticated theology so as to improve his arguments. That makes me doubt his sincerity.<br /><br />Is it now a bit clearer why I don't think that these writings by these people are up to snuff? It's not because I think that they themselves are incompetent. Rather, many of them are just not well-informed enough about the field that they're criticizing, or the angle from which they're criticizing it. Carrier, for instance, is an expert in Ancient Greece, not first century ANE culture, so he may not be qualified to talk about it in the same way that, say, Marcus Borg might be. So I don't mean to suggest that they're stupid; rather, they're not working in their fields when they make these criticisms.<br /><br />"I mentioned Carrier specifically because I have read some of his writings, where he outlined parallels between the Jesus stories and those of other gods or demi-gods of the time, and they are numerous."<br /><br />Sure, the comparisons that he draws are numerous, but I would maintain that when closely examined, they don't hold up to well. So, again, I would encourage you to look up the cited stories in primary sources, read them against the relevant parts of the Gospels that they are supposed to parallel, and then see whether the comparisons are as strong as claimed.<br /><br />Con'tSyllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-912302983084757662012-09-27T09:27:06.327-07:002012-09-27T09:27:06.327-07:00Syllabus,
"You were doing far better before ...Syllabus,<br /><br />"You were doing far better before you started being condescending and trying to give a psychological explanation for my rejection of Carrier's claims. Kindly don't do it again. I think I've paid you the compliment of answering your questions honestly and not being overly combative. The least you can do is not resort to patronization."<br /><br />I'm sorry for offending you. I was not trying to do that and I wasn't trying to be combative. I noted that the ones you called "excellent minds" were all philosophers or theistic scholars, (not theists) and the others were seen as rambling, inchoate, obtuse, inept.<br /><br />I mentioned Carrier specifically because I have read some of his writings, where he outlined parallels between the Jesus stories and those of other gods or demi-gods of the time, and they are numerous. I don't remember anything specifically about Horus, but he does talk about parallels with Osiris and others. I doubt that Jesus was purely mythical, but I think you could make a case for that. Either way, his life story has clearly been embellished with mythical elements.<br /><br />"In the same way that the existence Socrates as a man, Hannibal as a man and Siddarta Gautama as a man have not been established. And who are you getting this statement from?"<br /><br />There is real historical evidence that those people existed. But if you exclude the Bible, the evidence for the existence of Jesus is pretty slim. There is a majority view that he probably existed, but nothing I know of that establishes it as fact.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64896367071850759992012-09-26T17:42:32.861-07:002012-09-26T17:42:32.861-07:00Like I said...K'ay.Like I said...K'ay.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61946708308408800722012-09-26T17:31:40.528-07:002012-09-26T17:31:40.528-07:00In the case of Fatima it was "BVM with God...<i>In the case of Fatima it was "BVM with God's permission is talking to me & said she will give a sign tomorrow".<br /><br />Tomorrow comes & on cue a spectacular solar phenomena is witnessed by 70,000 people.<br /><br />Your answer? Well Protestants don't believe that.</i><br /><br />I was answering your charge of radical skepticism when I claimed that vast amounts of Protestants disbelieve Fatima as well. For my part, I could care less about Fatima. Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37828654870344057902012-09-26T16:52:50.396-07:002012-09-26T16:52:50.396-07:00>In other words, my methodology is great for re...>In other words, my methodology is great for rejecting the claims of Islam or the Latter-Day Saints, you just don't like it when it is turned against claims of revelation that you have chosen - or have been indoctrinated - to believe.<br /><br />Not at all. I am saying Catholic claims of revelation claim more then just "God is talking to me so please believe me".<br /><br />In the case of Fatima it was "BVM with God's permission is talking to me & said she will give a sign tomorrow".<br /><br />Tomorrow comes & on cue a spectacular solar phenomena is witnessed by 70,000 people.<br /><br />Your answer? Well Protestants don't believe that.<br /><br />K'ay.<br /><br /><br />Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37571719761891765422012-09-26T16:40:15.979-07:002012-09-26T16:40:15.979-07:00"I think you're wrong about that, at leas..."I think you're wrong about that, at least in principle. Would you say that if science were able to prove conclusively that no miraculous event ever occurs, it still wouldn't be able to present a cogent argument against the claims of Christianity?"<br /><br />First off, which branch of science are you talking about? Cosmology? Taxonomy? Zoology? Astrophysics?<br /><br />Secondly, I don't think that science - by this I mean disciplines which operate by the scientific method and deal exclusively with the empirically verifiable and repeatable - is the kind of thing that could demonstrate that miracles don't occur, and there are several reasons for that. First of all, science is descriptive. not proscriptive. That is, science tells is how things generally operate in more or less closed systems. It doesn't operate according to Laws that are some sort of inviolable Platonic form to which reality must accord. They describe thing like what happens when you drop an apple, or what happens when you heat a kettle to boiling.<br /><br />Which brings me neatly to my next point. Scientific laws operate with certain parameters; that is, they for the most part describe how things happen within a given system. For instance, take Newton's First Law of Motion: an object at rest will stay at rest UNLESS acted upon by some outside force. In this case, the first clause describes the normal state of an object, and the second describes what happens when the state of affairs that normally takes place is broken. Do you see the analogy? Science is inductive. It takes very accurate and precise measurements from 99 tests, and from these makes an inductive inference about what will probably happen the 100th. So they work very well as descriptors when you're dealing with a closed system. But science tells you nothing about whether or not anything lies outside that system. You can say that there is nothing other than what "science" can observe, but you didn't get that from science. That's metaphysics.<br /><br />"What if science eventually shows where the universe really arises from, and it's not God?"<br /><br />That's seems like Science!-of-the-gaps, first of all. And statements about whatever is logically prior to the universe cannot use spatial or temporal language in any sense but an analogical one. And again, science deals with the physical universe, and it does its job very well. Anything that lies on the other side of the initial singularity is not something that can be described by science, in principle. Saying otherwise is like saying that my unaided eyes can see all the way into the ultraviolet spectrum. It's just not within the purview of the tools I'm using.<br /><br />"As for historians, I realize that Carrier holds a minority view, but he does back it up with reasonable evidence."<br /><br />Have you actually read his work and looked at the sources he quotes? I'd hardly call the comparisons he draws between Christ and, say, Horus anything other than starkly incredible. <br /><br />As far as the "reasonable evidence" bit goes, to which parts are you referring, specifically?<br /><br />"And it's also true that the existence of Jesus the man has not been definitively established."<br /><br />In the same way that the existence Socrates as a man, Hannibal as a man and Siddarta Gautama as a man have not been established. And who are you getting this statement from?<br /><br />"But I understand how it would be upsetting to a Christian to learn that he was only a myth."<br /><br />You were doing far better before you started being condescending and trying to give a psychological explanation for my rejection of Carrier's claims. Kindly don't do it again. I think I've paid you the compliment of answering your questions honestly and not being overly combative. The least you can do is not resort to patronization.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41022812301943575272012-09-26T16:08:17.219-07:002012-09-26T16:08:17.219-07:00>It's far too general to be of any use. I m...<i><br />>It's far too general to be of any use. I mean I partly agree with you Walter. Muhammed walks up to me say Allah spoke to him threw the Archangel Gabriel I don't feel the need to believe him.</i><br /><br />In other words, my methodology is great for rejecting the claims of Islam or the Latter-Day Saints, you just don't like it when it is turned against claims of revelation that you have chosen - or have been indoctrinated - to believe.<br />Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1192606962282695972012-09-26T16:06:52.175-07:002012-09-26T16:06:52.175-07:00Syllabus,
Thanks for your reply.
"But philo...Syllabus,<br /><br />Thanks for your reply.<br /><br />"But philosophy and history are pretty much the only disciplines that can adjudicate the truth or lack thereof of the central claims of Christianity."<br /><br />I think you're wrong about that, at least in principle. Would you say that if science were able to prove conclusively that no miraculous event ever occurs, it still wouldn't be able to present a cogent argument against the claims of Christianity? What if science eventually shows where the universe really arises from, and it's not God?<br /><br />As for historians, I realize that Carrier holds a minority view, but he does back it up with reasonable evidence. And it's also true that the existence of Jesus the man has not been definitively established. But I understand how it would be upsetting to a Christian to learn that he was only a myth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28938430385249518142012-09-26T15:05:49.850-07:002012-09-26T15:05:49.850-07:00In the end I need a more pronounced philosophy of ...In the end I need a more pronounced philosophy of knowledge & the Deist doctrine of skepticism toward divine revelation here than merely QUOTE"A revelation from God is only a revelation to the first person who receives it. When that person passes this message to a second or third it becomes an anecdote about a revelation, and it is not incumbent upon the second person to believe a story about a revelation that could be the product of human deception or delusion. This is the methodology of deism concerning divine revelation."END QUOTE<br /><br />It's far too general to be of any use. I mean I partly agree with you Walter. Muhammed walks up to me say Allah spoke to him threw the Archangel Gabriel I don't feel the need to believe him.<br /><br />But there is more going on in the claims of Christian revelation than merely talking to God.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-75967692055047642522012-09-26T14:54:21.470-07:002012-09-26T14:54:21.470-07:00>Because I am not obligated to believe. God did...>Because I am not obligated to believe. God did not speak to me. For the record, many a Protestant Christian doesn't believe that Fatima was a real revelation from God or Mary's ghost either.<br /><br />So 70,000 people seeing this phenomena on cue isn't some type of "proof" or "strong evidence"?<br /><br />But you are not a "radical skeptic"?<br /><br />K'ay.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-32861194660919521652012-09-26T14:47:42.204-07:002012-09-26T14:47:42.204-07:00Then why don't you believe the Virgin Mary spo...<i>Then why don't you believe the Virgin Mary spoke to the children at Fatima?</i><br /><br />Because I am not obligated to believe. God did not speak to me. For the record, many a Protestant Christian doesn't believe that Fatima was a real revelation from God or Mary's ghost either.Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-68854276661636069142012-09-26T14:05:27.560-07:002012-09-26T14:05:27.560-07:00Then why don't you believe the Virgin Mary spo...Then why don't you believe the Virgin Mary spoke to the children at Fatima?<br /><br />They said the BVM spoke to them. They said she would give a sign. On the day in question a crowd of people witnessed a spectacular solar phenomena. Including many non-believers.<br /><br />This lead to the theorizing of the now discredited cognitive theory of Mass Hallucination as a possible natural explanation as too what everyone saw.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-74637937807115808012012-09-26T13:39:09.290-07:002012-09-26T13:39:09.290-07:00Then how do you know this method is valid? Also ho...<i><br />Then how do you know this method is valid? Also how do you know the second or third persons might not have good reasons to believe the testimony of the first?</i><br /><br />How do you know the first claimant is not lying or deluded? If I come to you tomorrow claiming that God has spoken to me and He has a message for you, it is *not* incumbent on you to believe me. This is not even close to radical skepticism. And nothing I said precludes a second or third party from believing if they so choose, it simply is not obligatory for them to believe a claim of revelation without proof - or at least very strong evidence - that God did indeed give the first person a message to "pass on."Walterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08597511645534603563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-53528743192840567982012-09-26T12:33:03.766-07:002012-09-26T12:33:03.766-07:00Given radical skepticism you can't even believ...Given radical skepticism you can't even believe in any first person revelation given first hand?<br /><br />Didn't some famous Atheist have a near-death experience where he encountered God as a Bright Red Light & yet when he woke up claimed publically to still not believe in God.<br /><br />Is radical skepticism justified?Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-41544496562833769062012-09-26T12:13:07.432-07:002012-09-26T12:13:07.432-07:00>Correct. Philosophy is a product of human reas...>Correct. Philosophy is a product of human reasoning.<br /> <br />You just had to say that.<br /><br />>Pay closer attention to what I wrote. I said that deists do not accept revelation that does not come directly to them in the first person. A revelation from God is only a revelation to the first person who receives it. When that person passes this message to a second or third it becomes an anecdote about a revelation, and it is not incumbent upon the second person to believe a story about a revelation that could be the product of human deception or delusion. This is the methodology of deism concerning divine revelation.<br /><br />Then how do you know this method is valid? Also how do you know the second or third persons might not have good reasons to believe the testimony of the first?<br /><br />It seems taken to it's logical extreme this just leads to radical skepticism. In the realm of radical skepticism you are prohibited from believing anything. But contradictory you must trust the method of radical skepticism or how can you rely on it? How do I know the method of radical skepticism is reliable?<br /><br />In the end you have to ask yourself.<br /><br />What is my philosophy of knowledge and certainty & is it consistent.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61401358660956765582012-09-26T10:36:01.652-07:002012-09-26T10:36:01.652-07:00Actually, as a follow-up, I concede that science c...Actually, as a follow-up, I concede that science could prove or disprove certain claims of religion, like creatio ex nihilo. All it would have to do in order to disprove that one is show that it's possible for the universe to be infinite in the past, or that it is infinite in the past. So far, cosmology has shown the exact opposite. Does that prove God exists? Not at all. But it's certainly consistent with the idea that he does.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91436643732577618672012-09-26T10:28:44.020-07:002012-09-26T10:28:44.020-07:00"Yes, it's enough for me to see that you ..."Yes, it's enough for me to see that you are not willing to listen to anyone who is not a philosopher or theistic scholar."<br /><br />Not at all. I'm perfectly willing to listen to people making arguments in their own field against certain claims of religious folk. For instance, the arguments of Coyne, Miller, Collins et al against Intelligent Design are valid, because they're dealing with a scientific theory on the level of science. That's entirely valid. But you can't deal with philosophical ideas by using science. That's just a category mistake. It's in much the same vein when philosophers or mathematicians make inferences to design from the improbability of part x or y of the human body evolving simply by chance. They're using mathematics to make judgements about biology. That's largely a category mistake. It's like me saying that, because no catcher caught the ball, therefore you did not make a strike in bowling. It misunderstands the problem.<br /><br />The existence of God is not a scientific question, in the sense of being demonstrable by experimentation, empirical observation and the scientific method. So, when people like Dawkins claim that the existence of God is a scientific question, and refuse to listen to people who try to correct them, I'm disinclined to take him seriously. There are no scientific arguments for or against the existence of God, nor should we expect there to be. God's not the sort of thing that could be found using the tools of science.<br /><br />As for Christopher Hitchens, I admit that he's probably my favourite atheist author. The man was a fantastic writer, and a brilliant and ballsy journalist. However, god is not Great was basically just a rant. It didn't contain any substantive arguments against religion. All it basically said was that religion poisons everything/leads to violence, and is therefore false. So, while I agree with many of his criticisms (though not all, since in his vigour to make his point he misconstrues facts that one can easily verify) I don't think he at all makes anything resembling a cogent argument against the truth of a religious creed.<br /><br />As for Carrier - look, there's a reason that the majority of NT scholarship regards mythicism as bunk. It's well documented. Even Ehrman, who is by no means a conservative Christian, is pretty dismissive of the mythicism rampant among many internet atheists, and is visible in films like Zeitgeist. You can believe that the Jesus presented in the Gospels wasn't divine - like Crossan, Borg, Ehrman and many others - and still be taken very seriously. It's much harder to be taken seriously when you start off claiming that the Jesus in the Gospels is a mash-up of Mithras/Dionysius/Horus/Isis or whatever. Once you look into the supposed parallels, you find that they're strained at best. And, besides, it's fairly well established that one has to look at the Gospels against the backdrop of Second Temple Judaism, not pagan Hellenistic or Egyptian cultures.<br /><br />And I'm perfectly willing to listen to people who aren't theists. That entire list is either agnostic or atheistic, and those are all arguments that I take as being serious arguments, though not necessarily successful ones.<br /> <br />"That's a shame because there's so much more out there. Philosophy may be a discipline of reasoning, but clearly not all philosophical reasoning is correct."<br /><br />Obviously not. But philosophy and history are pretty much the only disciplines that can adjudicate the truth or lack thereof of the central claims of Christianity. When I want to argue about YEC, I look to the sciences. When I want to argue about God or Jesus, I look to philosophy or history. To do otherwise is a category mistake.Syllabushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00563029287077473612noreply@blogger.com