Toto

You keep avoiding the point that ancient documentary evidence is inherently NOT high quality evidence. It's not just that we can't see it with our own eyes. We know that much of it is unreliable; we have no way of telling if a document was based on observation or is fictional, and other factors.

TedM

It doesn't have to be 'inherently NOT high quality'. If we had a plethora of ancient documents found in many locations, datable to a specific time(if that is helpful), all testifying to the same kinds of things, that would be high quality evidence, IMO. If they all said that they personally witnessed a man floating up to heaven, and they had not been doing anything that would have altered their perceptions, I would be highly inclined to accept it as truth. I gather from various answers here that others would not. I don't know what reasonable alternative explanation they could possibly come up with though.

EarlDoherty

Ted,

It is not the amount or quality of evidence that would convince me. I would be convinced if it were delivered through the standard delivery system of all religious belief: the mill of indoctrination and fear-mongering applied from childhood on, which most people on this board, I daresay, have experienced (myself included). The problem is that, for some, such 'conviction' is not impervious to later exposure to evidence and rationality which leads one to overcome and reject it.

Your initial question should not have been, "What would it take to convince you?" It should have been "What would it take to convert you?" You are asking what evidence would it take to give you faith in what the Gospels say, and faith as we all know exists in the absence of knowledge and objective certainty. So your whole exercise here is one of internal contradiction and fallacy.

As I said earlier, I will try to address your Hebrews posting on the weekend.

Earl Doherty

TedM

What is faith other than being 'convinced'? I don't see any distinction.

Faith is a mental conclusion based on the available evidence--which includes how one feels emotionally about something. "I think something is true even though I haven't seen it personally". That's faith. It definitely can take into account evidence on a rational basis.

You appear to be avoiding the question, which seems to be a trend here..

And are you saying people 'convert' out of fear without actually being convinced? That's not a true conversion--that's pretending.

I missed your saying that so thanks. And, I don't care if it takes 10 weekends, Earl. No pressure..

Toto

There is a distinction between being convinced by evidence and faith.

For example, when a drug company tests a new drug for its safety and effectiveness, there are recognized protocols of double blind testing. This is meant to remove the researchers' subjective emotional or financial attachment to the outcome. There is an unhappy history of drug promoters getting ahead of the evidence and pushing a new drug or therapy for emotional reasons, only to find later that the drug is ineffective or actually does harm.

Conversion is different. Sociologists have studied the process of converting to a new religion, and found that people are not converted by rational reasons. They are converted because they feel the need to belong to a group, and their new beliefs are part of the package. Once they have committed to the new religion, they study it and come up with rational sounding reasons for their decision, but these are rationalizations after the fact.

This has been documented over and over, and fits my experience with friends who have converted. Missionaries and cult recruiters know this, and know how to target young, insecure people who are looking for social connections. The conversion is a social process, not an intellectual process.

Fear can be very convincing.

Juststeve

Toto:

My point is not based on the idea that ancient sources are not credible. It is more fundamental than that. With David Hume I do not believe that the occurrence of a truly miraculous event can ever be established by witness testimony alone, whether the testimony is ancient or modern.

Suppose for instance you were to report on this forum that much to your surprise your cat, bootsey, took off in flight, flew around over your house for ten minutes, and then landed in your arms. Should that report cause me to believe in flying cats? I say no but it has nothing to do with your personal credibility. Even if I regard you as supremely honest and credible it is still more likely that you are hallucinatory, deluded, being forced to lie under duress for reasons I don't comprehend, telling a joke or doing something else I can't think of, than that cats have begun to fly, yours being the first one. That will always be the case when a person or group of people claim to have witnessed an unrepeatable miraculous event.

Steve

aa5874

You have contradicted yourself. Zero evidence does NOT alter Faith. Zero Evidence augments Faith.

Faith is based on Hope--Not Evidence.

The very NT explains what FAITH is.

Hebrews 11:1 KJVEffectively, FAITH becomes obsolete with Evidence.

TedM

Yes, one can be convinced from evidence alone. But, faith doesn't convince. Faith is being convinced by evidence AND feelings (which are perceived as subjective 'evidence'--rightly or wrongly).


That's the feelings side. However, it is a mistake to conclude that conversion never requires a rational approach. Many people have converted ONLY after a study based on what they personally believed to be rational methods.


Then they are 'convinced', based on emotion. The survival mechanism or need to belong socially can cause one to have faith. But, it is a mistake to turn it around and conclude that faith ONLY comes from emotion.

sotto voce

There are other possibilities. But it is not a good question to ask, as the 'answers' here may predictably, and comprehensively, illustrate. We have the reasonable point that, while miracles are possible, the evidence for them is possible fiction. Against that is the fact that those who, with vested interests, made much coercive attempt to oppose the following of evidence for miracles that is for us now only written, were quite unable to do so. In the words of Julian, the Galilaean had conquered. And outside Julian's purview, the only distinctive of Islam, far too late to be convincing, was that the Galilean had not been the christ. Those facts alone have convinced some of the occurrence of miracles. One can deduce the truth from the shape of the ideas of those who, by their violence, oppose truth. But they may not convince, nevertheless.

Then we have the classic example of petitio principii, which pre-determines that miracles are impossible, therefore they cannot have occurred. This is the finding of the person who, like Nelson, puts a blind eye to a telescope, and declares that he sees no ships. Of course the whole point of a miracle would be that it must be of supernatural cause because it cannot occur naturally! One might suppose that a creator can bust his own rules if he wants to get our attention, without getting permission of feeble mortals.

There is the false argument by ridicule, using rhetoric to belittle belief in the miraculous. There is the anomaly that people spend much time and effort arguing about what cannot be of interest to them, if they actually believe that miracles are impossible, and cannot justify their interest and involvement.

So why is this not a good question? Because people extrapolate. They know that miracles occurred because people who accept the miraculous behave in ways that are, in a sense, miraculous. This is because there is no motivation evident anywhere for their type of behaviour except in the concept of a miraculously resurrected christ.

Atheos

Please read what I said or simply quote me rather than paraphrasing in a way that changes it.

Here's what I said:
That's a far cry from saying that "there can be no quality or quantity of evidence that would convince..."

There are two things you don't seem to be comprehending here. First of all, there is the exclusion that I am referring specifically to "historical documentation." This means there's still room for physical evidence, testable and repeatable experimental evidence, etc.

Secondly, and equally applicable I said "I cannot imagine," not "There ain't no."