I'd like to hear your arguement for the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection. I think belief in that does require presupposition about hte truth of Christianity. That's seems be be a major difference in the worldview of Christians( and I assume members of other religions as well) compared to atheists. Christians claim that their belief is the Truth and everyone should realize it. Many have tried to convince me of this and none have succeeded so far. Atheists, on the other hand, tend to hold nothing as absolute truth. In my mind there is always the POSSIBILTY of anything. I accept the possibility that Christianity is correct. I just find that to be very unlikely.
I'm not sure what you mean by "justify my world view." I believe what seems believable to me. I accept what appears to me to be the truth whether or not its pleasant or comforting or meaningful. I have never experienced anything that makes me believe in anything beyond nature nor do I see any good reasons to presuppose the supernatural in any form.

I think everyone has assumptions on some level. My assumptions are, as yours, that we exist and we can perceive the world around us. I also assume that we can trust our perceptions to a certain degree. I also assume that anything beyond nature is unproveable and I believe the safer preconception is that the supernatural does not exist.
I try to view everything as objectively as possible. I recognise that it is impossible to study anything from a completely objective viewpoint, but I think it is necessary to try to attempt to find the truth. I try to be open to any possibility but not too accepting. My assumptions and preconceptions can and do occasionally change, but it will require proof or at least very, very good evidence.
This thread seems to be coming in line with a question I posted on the Existence of God forum. Its titled "Shouldn't Truth be obvious." If you have time please read and respond to that. I'd like to hear your thoughts and ideas.

Okay, draven, I read the thread and I think the basic quibble people are having with the Christian position is that it seems to assume the prima facie truth of the Bible at the outset. Now, I know there are certain Christian philosophers who assert that there is no other way to debate or think about the issue, who have been quoted in one of the formal debates on World-views (Cornelius Van Til being a prime example). But I don't.

Argh, were you asking me to think about another question in that thread? I am suddenly unsure.

Anyway, I think I can say that the positions you object to are Christians jumping to the conclusions that: the Bible is inerrant in every detail; the Bible is the only source of truth about God; the values of the Bible are the only ground for rational discussion. Perhaps other things as well. Then you object to me, say, proving the resurrection of Jesus using NT sources when I have already assumed that the Bible is totally true. To you, this seems like an unfair argument. Is that kind of what you were getting at?

My position on the Bible instead is that it is not proper to put the cart before the horse. These arguments about the "great" trustworthiness of the Bible (like its inerrancy, for instance) certainly need some kind of solid foundation; otherwise they will not make any sense to you. If I can't justify them with some reason or argument, you shouldn't have to believe them.

So, as I said, my position is that without assuming the Bible to be true from the outset, it is possible to investigate the NT documents and other sources to determine whether or not Jesus existed and died and lived again as I claim. Assuming that large large claim was proven, I could make the argument that the Gospel accounts are reasonably accurate renderings of his life, and could start drawing other inferences about his teaching and understanding. I could also make the argument that we should share his understanding as far as we are able, and obey his teaching. And last, I would point out that his teaching on the Hebrew Scriptures is very clear in Matthew 5:17-20, and elsewhere. All the Hebrew Scriptures were still valid, fulfilled in him.

Now your post point by point:

"I'd like to hear your arguement for the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection."

Oh my! We could be here for a while.

My argument for the historical fact of Jesus' resurrection is probably, with refinement, not particularly more persuasive to you than many others you've heard. The Gospel documents undoubtedly exist. Who wrote them, and from what motives? And everyone harps on when, too, I suppose. Can they be said to be historical in any sense? How much is historical? Any outside evidence? And really on and on... these documents have been prodded and probed by society after society. And I suspect that there will continue to be good questions asked about them.

I could say this to begin with: I find the story propounded by the mythicists and others about the origins of the Gospels to be frankly unpersuasive. The kerygma, the confession of the church, was that Jesus Christ was crucified, dead, buried, and literally raised to life. I don't know how to characterize the dating of this confession. It isn't really necessary to the story I want to tell, although I suppose the earlier the date is, the better for me.

As far as I know, these mythicists say that the kerygma confessed by the church does not correspond to the actual events in history. That is, Jesus was invented, or reinvented, or reinterpreted, etc. by some group in between the events and the kerygma. And theories abound about this. I think the Jesus Seminar says he was a sort of Gnostic preacher (I am not entirely certain). I think I heard that there are legendary accounts of him visiting India in that long silence between his childhood and the beginning of his public ministry, and being trained in the Vedas or something. But there are probably many more answers to the question, "Who was Jesus?"

The problem, as I see it, is that I haven't heard a plausible story as to who would have reinvented Jesus, how they would have done so in the current historical and cultural milieu (the events and accounts were not operating in some kind of vacuum), and especially why they would have done so.

For example: I don't see why the apostles would have venerated him as a teacher or something, then changed around all his teaching to explain that he was Messiah and God. I don't see how they could if there were witnesses and extant teachings about Jesus apart from the four Gospels (like Q, for instance). The argument that the Gospels would have been believed whether factual or not presupposes an enormous vacuum for these documents to operate in. I don't understand why, if they wanted to reinvent Jesus, they wrote the story they eventually did (which has its bizarre moments and bad moments for them, and also its rather obscure moments).

I think rather that the evidence is that the Christian belief did not fundamentally change over time, was not subject to reinventing or major interpolation (although I would readily admit that most of the NT builds on earlier sources, and obviously the Gospels do, so there are transmissions and redactions, etc.). My story about the apostles is much simpler: the apostles changed their world-view when Christ was resurrected. They were faithless people when he died, faithful people after he rose. Even beyond them, there were many witnesses to the resurrection. The Gospel accounts are essentially truthful, and basically written in the genre of biography (although they do each have their unique theological standpoints and emphases), and their facts were meant to be taken as corresponding to history. They are the apostles' stories.

I know that there is a lot in here subject to argument. I admit, I am just making challenges and claims here because I assume that is sort of what you wanted. I could probably do it without limit, is the only problem. So, I'll call that a good start and we'll go on.

But really the problem as I see it is for opponents of Christianity to account for all the data. I find that often they account for selective parts of the record and characterize Christ or a verse or a doctrine in mutually exclusive or even opposite ways.

"I think belief in that does require presupposition about hte truth of Christianity."

In any case, in none of the foregoing do I assume the prima facie truth of Christianity. Instead I assert that the non-resurrection claim "makes the story bad", which is another way of saying that I don't think it fits the historical evidence.

"Christians claim that their belief is the Truth and everyone should realize it."

Now, I certainly believe my view is at bottom the correct one- that is Jesus' testimony about himself: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters." "I am the way and the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me." "Enter through the narrow gate..." "I am the gate for the sheep." And so on. However, I will not beat my head against a wall trying to persuade you that as I am a really nice guy, you should assume that my Truth is really good for you. I try expressly not to argue in those terms.

I also don't want to treat people who aren't Christians like they're dumb and just need to wake up and see the too-obvious light. That doesn't get anybody anywhere. It's not an argument, anyway.

"Atheists, on the other hand, tend to hold nothing as absolute truth."

I assume that here you mean truth beyond the shadow of a doubt, and not objective truth. I have known many atheists who believed that truth-claims are statements about actual correspondences to reality. I think you may be inveighing here against an unexamined, 100 percent sort of belief. I would do the same. (especially since I read 1984- can I prove that I do not pathologically lie to myself about who I am? of course not!)

I would point out though that there are many amounts of truth, and one level is "beyond any reasonable doubt". While not 100 percent, it is certainly a high standard, and an achievable one (it simply means that there is no unchecked reason to disbelieve the truth of a statement, and it certainly is possible to check counter-arguments to the statement one by one). So, it can be a good way to describe in what sense a web of belief is consistent, coherent, and corresponds to reality.

Feel free to explain though, if my explanation of your words sounds funny.

"I'm not sure what you mean by "justify my world view." I believe what seems believable to me. I accept what appears to me to be the truth whether or not its pleasant or comforting or meaningful. I have never experienced anything that makes me believe in anything beyond nature nor do I see any good reasons to presuppose the supernatural in any form."

Well, I just meant, if it makes sense to you why you believe as you do, you could tell me your reasons. I don't know your personal philosophy, or if you even have one. for example, you sounded a bit like a naturalist, so I was wondering if you had any reasons for believing there was nothing "outside the box". What are your reasons for your choice of personal philosophy? (maybe that's a better way to ask)

So, your arguments against belief in the supernatural are that you have never personally experienced it, or seen good evidence for it. Is that a good summation?

How do you define nature? What is the difference between natural and supernatural, do you say? I ask because I wonder what could constitute evidence for you that the supernatural was indeed operating in a situation.

"I also assume that anything beyond nature is unproveable and I believe the safer preconception is that the supernatural does not exist."

My answer to this question sort of needs to know how you define natural and supernatural.

However, I think the first part of your sentence, if taken at face value, is wrong. It is the presupposition, rather than the proof, that nothing exists "outside the box."

Briefly, if you believed in a consistent system of natural laws that fully explicated reality, then if Event A happened to violate those laws, the logical conclusion would be that A is non-natural. In fact, eliminating all the natural causes would serve as the argument that A is non-natural. I think that is the kind of proof you are talking about.

If instead you are asserting that you have never seen all the natural causes eliminated for any one particular Event, I think this is different than saying that anything beyond nature is unproveable.

"I try to view everything as objectively as possible. I recognise that it is impossible to study anything from a completely objective viewpoint, but I think it is necessary to try to attempt to find the truth. I try to be open to any possibility but not too accepting. My assumptions and preconceptions can and do occasionally change, but it will require proof or at least very, very good evidence."

You are beating my drum! I understand your position on these things and wouldn't change it for the world.

I think that's all... did I leave out anything important in your post?

Cheers,
Dan