Hello Toto

From your comments it would appear you have nothing to add to the devastating responses to Earl, and are merely trying to encourage him in defeat?

If you have access to a cheer squad maybe you would all benefit from the example of those who mocked and scorned Christ on his way to the Cross?

Or maybe you have already been there and done that?

Cheers,

Hilarius

Toto

Hilarius -

I have nothing to add because Earl did well enough for himself. I was responding to his reaction to dmvprof's complaint about length. I would suggest that Earl take his posts and turn them into an article for the Kiosk on the Secular Web.

Nothing Earl said was refuted, and this thread has gone on long enough.

I would not mock Jesus or anyone else in real trouble. I save my scorn for true believers who have twisted their thinking process around non-scientific ideologies that don't work.

Good job Nomad. Seems Earl and his cohorts are always left with the same old tired bromides, "Prove it". And, "All I have to do is cast a shadow of doubt." It seems never to occur to them that they share as much burden, should they request proof, as the theist simply because they launch into all manner of speculations. In order to remain free of any burden they must remain free of any input and just ask questions. The moment they venture into the realm of speculation they must either immediately admit their speculative thrust or support their contentions. neither of which Earl has yet managed.

Just a summary note on the debate about Jesus' burial. No, I'm not going to address Nomad's last post to me. To do so I would mostly have to repeat myself, which means that the debate is over: our views are on the table and readers can make up their own mind, which evidently they have. Our main disagreement is on the reasonableness of my arguments. Nomad calls them "wild speculations," whereas I call them reasonable doubts. That's a judgment call.

For example, Nomad says Pilate wouldn't have wanted to start a riot on Passover by depriving Jesus of burial. And I say we don't even know Jesus was probably executed on Passover, given the gospel authors' theological interest in updating the paschal lamb symbolism. Where does the "evidence" lie on this issue? Which is the stronger case and which is just speculation? The answer isn't as obvious or certain as Nomad declares, and only traditional Christians have an intense interest in saying otherwise.

It appears that the debate hasn't done the least bit of good in changing anyone's mind on the subject. Committed Christians believe my arguments were "devastated," and committed skeptics believe the opposite. I wonder if anyone's mind was changed one way or the other, at least on minor points.

By the way, Rainbow Walking, do jurors have any burden of proof, and if not do they just ask questions when they go off to consider their judgment? Or do they vigorously attack the attorneys' case and decide which claims hold water? The debate on Jesus' burial is unequal in that the matter is crucial to traditional Christianity but not to skepticism. Neither Jesus' divinity or resurrection follow from his burial. But the integrity of the gospel is lost if any of the pieces become doubtful or symbolic. The Christians, therefore, naturally act as the attorneys, and the rest of us can just consider their case from the standpoint of jurors or evaluators of their case as opposed to the absolute truth of the matter, which skeptics don't claim to have on questions of ancient history. Christians are more interested in the question of Jesus' burial, and therefore they naturally make the most of the evidence we have, preparing a case for non-Christians to accept. My case against Jesus' burial is dependent on and relative to the Christians' case for Jesus' burial. Were the Christian not to have already asserted that Jesus was buried I would hardly go out of my way and attempt to establish that Jesus was not buried. I don't care either way. I attack the Christian's case as doubtful; I don't claim to offer an independent case against Jesus' burial, which means that establishing reasonable doubt is all the skeptic need do to justify the rejection of the Christian's claim that Jesus was buried.

Any comparison of historical inquiry and legal burdens of proof is problematic for many reasons. But even if the comparison had some validity, why on earth do you grasp for the most unique and problematic burden of proof available, "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Criminal trials are notorious for their impendiments to, and devaluation of, the search for truth. In order to protect the individual from the overwhelming power of the state and preserve his constitutional rights, the government is restricted in many ways, with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard being perhaps the most extreme. This burden is not imposed to facilitate the search for truth, but in fact imposed with the full knowledge that it will impede that search.

In this case, there is no such disparity in ability or resources. You both have the same historical data available to you and the same internet access to further your point. We can assume that you are both of at least reasonable intelligence and ability. In fact, the only justification you seem to offer for applying the extreme burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is that Christians are more interested in this subject than nonChristians. This contention is foolish. You seek to blame the Christians for your own lack of interest, knowledge, or ability. So, even assuming your statement is true--which it really is not--it does not justify the imposition of such a burden.

Moreover, your assertion just is not true. Most Christians, for better or worse, don't spend much time questioning the historicity of their faith. They assume it is true. Additionally, claiming that there is a lack of skeptical interest in the historical Jesus is belied by the very existence of this board and the the varied and diverse nature of the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus, as well as the previous two decidely nontraditionalist quests for the historical Jesus. It is clear, therefore, that any claim to a lack of interest is without merit.

Although I can imagine that some skeptics will side with you and argue that Christians must prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt" because they are asserting the positive. Of course, this is very misleading. Given the fact that most skeptics, and you I assume, accept that Jesus was executed, you are both attempting to prove the positive. That is, Jesus was left on the cross, buried in a common grave, or buried in a more private grave. Moreover, even if there is to be a burden of proof imposed upon the Christian position, this fact in no way supports the notion that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as to some other standard of proof.

Accordingly, if we must intrude into the legal sphere to borrow concepts of burdens of proof (which I have my doubts about) the more appropriate standard is "preponderance of the evidence." This is the standard applied by courts in civil actions and in evidentiary disputes in criminal actions. In short, this is the standard U.S. Courts apply when trying to determine "what happened" rather than criminal liability. And many times the stakes are very high indeed, including vast somes of money, child custody, and governmental intrusion into our lives.

Of course, even if we were to borrow, for some reason, the legal communities' standards of investigation, I am not sure that the adversarial method of the U.S. justice system would be the most appropriate system to draw from. The Continental inquisitorial system, which prides itself on being a "search for what happened" rather than a competition based on who has the best lawyers, demphasizes burdens of proof and focuses on independent evaluation of the evidence.

Accordingly, Earl, your discussion of standards of proof, unsupported by any substantive discussion of applicability or suitability, appears to be nothing but a cop out and an admission that your arguments are inferior to Nomad's arguments.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 11, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 11, 2001).]

Toto

I think that Layman has misunderstood or misrepresented Earl's last statement. The question isn't whether it is proof beyond a reasonable doubt or by a preponderance of evidence, it is who has the burden of proof.

Nomad wants to put the burden on non-believers to come up with an explanation of what he alleges are agreed on facts. His argument seems to be "accept 90% of the gospels as fact because I said so and prove to me that Jesus is not the Son of God." Skeptics reject this burden of proof.

The apologists seem to assume that the gospels must be the default position, and that anyone challenging them must prove that they are wrong. Skeptics look at the gospels and see documents that look like fiction, and assume that anyone who believes that they are historical truth would have to prove that the events happened using other sources. If the burden of proof is on the apologists, they have not met it.

There is no way to agree on what happened. If you accept the gospels as historical documents, there isn't much more you can say. If you don't, there is no way you can prove that they are true.

I am not impressed with Nomad's arguments. His only response to many of them is to accuse his opponent (Koy or Earl) of being mentally deficient. He (and Layman) appeal to historical "experts" rather than historical method.

I notice that Dennis McD has started a new thread challenging Nomad's historical sources. Perhaps any further arguement should be continued there.

rw: The burden of the juror is to consider the evidence presented in consonance with established rules of procedure for such consideration. The "burden" of proof lies with counsel.


rw: Irrelevant. Any debate must proceed on the assumption that both parties have a vested interest in the outcome. Since it is not likely either of you were going to change anyone's mind your claim of inequity is irrelevant to the outcome.

rw: Only in the minds of those already given to vesting their integrity elsewhere Earl. Since you haven't established any reasonable doubt in minds that weren't already given over to such disputations, I'd say you failed to prosecute your case.


rw: This isn't courtroom procedure, Earl. Jurors aren't allowed to question attorneys but must direct their questions to the presiding judge through the jury foreman. You have clearly been prosecuting your position rigorously as a counsel for the plaintiff.

rw: This was never a contested claim during the debate, was it?

rw: This is also irrelevant to the fact that the procedures you used enjoined you to the debate in an adversarial position. You introduced a number of highly speculative alternatives and arguments from silence, all of which thrusts you before the jury to give an account of your disputations. A lawyer striving to discredit a witness brings factual challenges to his testimony. A book of records submitted to the court as the primary exhibit must be countermanded with more accurate records stating in more precise language an alternative recording of the incident in question. Profiling one of the parties involved and offering alternative possible explanations is highly speculative and not allowed as evidence. Also profiling the party responsible for the record and calling into question his motives for recording said document, without explicit written or testimonial evidence to establish said profile as a legitimate challenge, is also nothing more than speculation and dis-allowed. Simply offering a different interpretation of the evidence is not a legal matter and left up to experts to discover. So, if you are making an appeal from a legal standpoint, your case would have been thrown out of court before the jury was even selected.

LAYMAN: Any comparison of historical inquiry and legal burdens of proof is problematic for many reasons. But even if the comparison had some validity, why on earth do you grasp for the most unique and problematic burden of proof available, "beyond a reasonable doubt"? Criminal trials are notorious for their impendiments to, and devaluation of, the search for truth. In order to protect the individual from the overwhelming power of the state and preserve his constitutional rights, the government is restricted in many ways, with the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard being perhaps the most extreme. This burden is not imposed to facilitate the search for truth, but in fact imposed with the full knowledge that it will impede that search.

EARL: My use of how courts work was meant only to be analogy, the central point of which is not the highness of the burden of proof but the difference in the burden between the attorney and the juror. I recognize that courts have a special reason for requiring the prosecution to meet such a high burden of proof. I have no problem talking about "preponderance of the evidence" as opposed to "reasonable doubt" in the context of Jesus' burial.

On the other hand, I take the presence of reasonable doubts against Christian doctrines to reveal an internal inconsistency in the religion and an argument in itself for lacking belief in God's existence. God, after all, is conceived as a judge of our actions: if we continue to sin and rebel against God we will be sentenced to hell. If there are reasonable doubts against Christianity, however, it's hard to see how God could be intelligibly fair in punishing nonbelievers in this way. For this reason my court analogy is especially apt. In this case, to strain the analogy, the skeptic acts as both the defendant and the juror. The evidence for Christianity is presented to her, she finds reasonable doubt (or a negative preponderance of the evidence) and therefore cannot, not just will not, accept the Christian's claims. Regardless of whether the skeptic mounts an independent attack on Christianity, were she to find the Christian's case doubtful she would be justified in withholding belief in God--indeed she could not do otherwise.

My point is that the skeptic need not establish an independent case against Jesus' burial, but can show that the Christian's case for this--something the Christian inevitably makes due to her stronger interest in the subject (her faith)--is defective and not necessary to accept (whether because of the preponderance of the evidence, reasonable doubt, or whatever).



LAYMAN: In this case, there is no such disparity in ability or resources. You both have the same historical data available to you and the same internet access to further your point. We can assume that you are both of at least reasonable intelligence and ability. In fact, the only justification you seem to offer for applying the extreme burden of "beyond a reasonable doubt" is that Christians are more interested in this subject than nonChristians. This contention is foolish. You seek to blame the Christians for your own lack of interest, knowledge, or ability. So, even assuming your statement is true--which it really is not--it does not justify the imposition of such a burden.

EARL: How does the skeptic's lack of interest in Jesus' burial amount to "blaming the Christian"? When have I blamed the Christian for anything in the thread on Jesus' burial? Do you mean laying a special and unfair burden of proof on the Christian? The Christian already believes very strongly certain positive things about Jesus: in short, the Christian accepts the New Testament as mostly or perfectly correct (Jesus performed miracles, was resurrected, is God, etc). The skeptic lacks these beliefs. Would you be so bold (and illogical) as to ask the skeptic to prove that Jesus did NOT perform miracles, was NOT resurrected and is NOT God? No, that's not how the burden of proof works. The Christian makes the positive claims and presents her case to convince others to accept Christianity. Non-Christians are then faced with a choice, according to Christianity: accept the gospel or be damned. But what if the non-Christian finds reasons to doubt the gospel? In that case, like a defendant on trial for her life (or more exactly, warned of the inevitable trial by God in the future), and like a juror who weighs the evidence put before her in the form of the Christian's case for her religion, she must render a negative verdict. The existence of this nonbelief by itself counts as evidence against God's existence. I've had this debate before, I believe, with Rainbow Walking and others, but I can't remember the forum name.



LAYMAN: Moreover, your assertion just is not true. Most Christians, for better or worse, don't spend much time questioning the historicity of their faith. They assume it is true. Additionally, claiming that there is a lack of skeptical interest in the historical Jesus is belied by the very existence of this board and the the varied and diverse nature of the Third Quest for the Historical Jesus, as well as the previous two decidely nontraditionalist quests for the historical Jesus. It is clear, therefore, that any claim to a lack of interest is without merit.

EARL: Here you simply misrepresent my position. I said the skeptic lacks interest in Jesus' burial, not in the historical Jesus or Christianity in general. Even so, the skeptic's interest in refuting Christianity is usually a step in undercutting Christianity's impact on politics. The Christian's interest in her religion is far stronger than the skeptic's.

The Christians who merely assume Jesus was buried do have an argument to support their position, although this argument isn't the one offered by Nomad or Secweblurker. This more popular argument for Jesus' burial is as follows: "I've had a religious experience, proving to me that God exists (or I've been brought up to believe in God and see good reasons for still doing so). The bible and Church tradition appear to me miraculous, and since the bible says Jesus was buried, therefore Jesus was buried. QED." That argument justifies belief in Jesus' burial only for the already committed Christian, though.



LAYMAN: Although I can imagine that some skeptics will side with you and argue that Christians must prove this "beyond a reasonable doubt" because they are asserting the positive. Of course, this is very misleading. Given the fact that most skeptics, and you I assume, accept that Jesus was executed, you are both attempting to prove the positive. That is, Jesus was left on the cross, buried in a common grave, or buried in a more private grave. Moreover, even if there is to be a burden of proof imposed upon the Christian position, this fact in no way supports the notion that it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, as to some other standard of proof.

[SNIP]

EARL: I've addressed this quibble above. I'm not interested here in the difference between reasonable doubt and preponderance of the evidence. I'm interested in the difference between the attorney and the juror, in having the burden independently to produce a case, and in resting back and examining that case to determine its reasonability. Christianity comes first, and then skepticism. Skepticism depends on Christianity, and the skeptic need establish her objections only relative to the Christian's case. Once the Christian's case is determined to be doubtful, the skeptic need not carry on and establish an independent case against God's existence. That's the difference between having a positive belief (in this case the most intense kind, religious faith), and lacking a belief.



LAYMAN: Of course, even if we were to borrow, for some reason, the legal communities' standards of investigation, I am not sure that the adversarial method of the U.S. justice system would be the most appropriate system to draw from. The Continental inquisitorial system, which prides itself on being a "search for what happened" rather than a competition based on who has the best lawyers, demphasizes burdens of proof and focuses on independent evaluation of the evidence.

EARL: Interesting. But again, it was only analogy. I don't claim it fits the skeptic vs. Christian scenario perfectly. I only wanted to give an example of an actual case where the burden of proof in a debate is uneven. In the Continental system judges replace jurors, no?



LAYMAN: Accordingly, Earl, your discussion of standards of proof, unsupported by any substantive discussion of applicability or suitability, appears to be nothing but a cop out and an admission that your arguments are inferior to Nomad's arguments.

EARL: I admit no such thing. Also, recently I've debated Secweblurker not Nomad on Jesus' burial, because Nomad considered it a waste of time. I've made no cop out; on the contrary, I've gone to great lengths to support my position.


[This message has been edited by Earl (edited April 11, 2001).]

RAINBOW: Only in the minds of those already given to vesting their integrity elsewhere Earl. Since you haven't established any reasonable doubt in minds that weren't already given over to such disputations, I'd say you failed to prosecute your case.

[SNIP]

This isn't courtroom procedure, Earl. Jurors aren't allowed to question attorneys but must direct their questions to the presiding judge through the jury foreman. You have clearly been prosecuting your position rigorously as a counsel for the plaintiff.

EARL: See my reply to Layman. I used the point about the difference between an attorney and a juror only as an imperfect analogy. Quibbling about the analogy's imperfections doesn't negate the point I did make. I need only have considered myself a juror giving reasons for the rendering of a "Not buried" verdict, not as prosecutor out to change anyone's mind. What I had in mind in the analogy was the way jurors argue amongst themselves in the back room, going over the evidence, poking holes in the cases presented to them, and justifying their opinions. Even here, the analogy is imperfect because there are numerous jurors and they try to convince each other. So imagine only one juror and one attorney (here there's the complication of whether the Christian is a prosecutor or a defense attorney, but this is also beside the point). The Christian attorney presented her case to myself, the skeptical juror, and although I of course questioned the attorney himself, I need only have considered my objections to be the justification for my negative verdict, as if after the trial I were asked by reporters for an explanation of my judgment. The fact that I argued with the attorney is beside the point, but the analogy can to some extent cover this. Deliberating jurors sometimes ask for clarifications of rulings and the evidence, etc.

And again, what the Christian calls "highly speculative" I call reasonable doubt. This is simply the judgment call that separates the Christian from the skeptic. You claim I have no evidence to support my view, and I claim you have no good evidence to support yours.

Your points about what sort of evidence would be allowed in a trial made me laugh out loud, by the way. As if the bible would be considered reasonable evidence of anything in a modern trial; as if miracles are taken seriously in a court of law; as if an appeal to "God did it" would be permissible or counted as something better than wild speculation or superstition; as if religious propaganda would count as plain, factual history. You say "if you are making an appeal from a legal standpoint, your case would have been thrown out of court before the jury was even selected." I think you've reversed the situation.

First a standard must be chosen that is agreed to on both sides. This can be beyond a reasonable doubt, perponderance of the evidence ,or whatever. Until a standard is agree to, discussion will be pointless. Theist and atheist might as well walk their separate ways and leave it at that.

Then the burden of proof must be placed on some party. Typically the burden of proof is on the positive claimant. If this is not agreed to,(which would be highly unusual) then some other arangement must be made or, as before, theist and atheist might as well walk their separate ways. It is not probable that discussion could ever be meaningful or even progress graciously.

For me, the default position for a claim is often, "I don't know". If a theist purports to tell me they do know what happened 2000 years ago in ancient Palestine, and that what happened has the potential to be the biggest impact on my life over any other thing in the universe, then I expect nothing less than unambiguous evidence beyond any reasonable doubt. If that standard is too difficult for theists, then I can only say, "too bad". Have a nice day.

It is my opinion that for claims of such a fantastic nature, "reasonable doubt" is actually too low a standard and is overly generous to the theist. Fantastic claims that we have no good reason to expect can actually occur should naturally require a tremendous amount of evidence. I would require such for claims of ghosts, werewolves or psychic abilities, I see no reason to require less for angels, miracles or risen god-men.