TomboyMom

O.K., now we know where we are. Let's talk about the gospel of Mark. Do you agree that was the first written gospel that we have today? My understanding is that virtually all biblical scholars, whether Christian or not, agree that it was written between 65 and 80 C.E. They base this on various evidence, including content, wording, etc. I believe it is virtually universally acknowledged that it was not in fact written by the Mark of the bible, nor by anyone who ever met Jesus alive. Do you disagree? Who do you think wrote it, when, and why? ON what evidence do you base this?
I mean around 90% of the PhD. academic professors and authors now working in this field, the people who teach in theological seminaries and departments of religion all over the world. Are you looking for specific names?
Here's a cut from the religious tolerance website--pretty unbiased, I think: re: Gospel of Mark:
I did not move the goalposts. I clarified what I meant by eye-witness account, that is, one written by an eye-witness. I actually think you have to work pretty hard to get another meaning from what I said, but I thought I should make it completely clear.

WTD are you talking about? Obviously I don't think I'm in error, and nothing you have said has changed my mind. I'm not asking you to "agree with my error" but asking whether you think I'm in error or not. I understand that you think I am. However, the overwhelming majority of intelligent people who have spent their lives poring over ancient manuscripts and comparing their contents line by line agree with me. If you believe I am in error, please bring forth the evidence.

I certainly do not assert or believe that believing something makes it so, quite the contrary. Similarly, I do not believe that other people believing something makes it more likely to be true.

Absolutely not. What did I say that caused you conclude this? My practice is to base my beliefs on the best evidence available.

Since I am not myself an expert in this area, and do not intend to become one, I rely on leading thinkers in the field, at least as to relatively non-controversial areas of agreement. I believe that the consensus about the origin of the gospels is in this category. This includes both Christian and non-Christian experts.
"Dogmatic naturalism" is a very weird phrase to use. I do rely on the evidence of my senses and what can be established or verified through them, and those of others. If someone wrote a book asserting that Mark appeared to him in a dream and told him how he wrote the gospel, I would not give it much credence. However, the question before us is not the existence of supernatural events, but just who wrote the gospels and when. I believe this is question best addressed by the methodological naturalism, as are all questions of fact. Once this has been established, each individual can reach their own conclusions about what that tells us about the events described in them.

...

The only thing Paul even claims to be an eyewitness to is a vision. I'll accept that he had it, but that's not very helpful to me about what actually happened in the physical world, and tells me nothing about Jesus' life.

So your position is that Matthew actually saw Jesus with his own eyes? On what do you base this, other than that he says so?

Patriot7

No. I mean dogmatic naturalism. Empirical method and dogmatic naturalism are clearly not the same thing. Empirical method is different as it allows for judgements of fact and truth a posteriori. As you exclude the claims of the gospels a priori your entrenched position of dogmatic naturalism, excludes the supernatural as a possible category. If the accounts of the Gospels are true, you have no way of rationally processing this information because you've already decided what reality can or can not be - a priori. An approach that allows for reality to be whatever it is going to be, is much closer to science and empirical method, then dogmatic naturalism.

Maybe the supernatural doesn't exist in reality. But by excluding that possibility before we consider the evidence is counter-intuitive to true open mindedness and only ensures that we will find a naturalistic explanation! How can we not? We've already made up our minds!

Diogenes the Cynic

There is no such thing as "dogmatic naturalism." Assumptions about physical laws ARE a posteriori as those assumptions are based on already established observations and confirmations.
I exclude the supernatural claims of the Gospels as historical based on the fact that they would necessarily violate physical laws and therefore be impossible. Empirical method presumes the impossible to be impossible until proven otherwise. It's the only logical default and empirical method would be impossible without that default.
No, I've established it on a posteriori knowledge of physcal laws,
There is no such thing as "dogmatic naturalism," and you don't seem to show much understanding of empirical method.
What evidence? There isn't any evidence. That's your problem.
A naturalistic explanation for what? What needs to be explained? You also need to tell me why supernatural hypotheses should ever be considered before natural explanations are exhausted.
One of us has.

Diogenes the Cynic

He doesn't even say so.

cognac

The supernatural worldview has no falsification provision and thus no parsimonious means of determining what is real. If the statement "the impossible is possible" is true in your worldview, then every possible supernatural statement has an equal claim to truth as an explanation for any given event.

Sven

Umm, Diogenes, this isn't easy at all. For the simple reason that we are still far from knowing what the "laws of physics" actually are. Granted, the possibility that we'll find out that they allow for so-called miracles isn't that large. But as long as we don't know the laws, it simply isn't possible to call something "impossible". "Very unlikely according to the laws of physics as we know them" on the other hand, is a perfectly accetable statement.

ETA: You are making a very common error here - to assume that the "laws of physics" are prescriptive rather than descriptive.

TomboyMom

While it may be necessary to get into a philosophical discussion about naturalism to determine whether the gospels are true, we certainly don't need to in order to discuss who wrote them and when.

Further, even if one admits supernatural events or explanations, it does not follow that there is evidence they occurred in this case. I submit that even if you allow them in your worldview, there is insufficient evidence in this case to accept them. For example, the evidence that Jesus was conceived of a virgin by Yahweh via the holy spirit--some accounts written by anonymous guys a few decades later...that's it. So even if that were possible, which it only is under a supernatural world view, there is still not enough evidence to believe it, IMO.

cognac

Maybe the difference we're dealing with is one between possibility and probability?

It seems to me what P7 is saying is that because an event cannot be termed "impossible" then it must also be probable.

Maybe Bayes Theorum should be applied here.

Patriot7

It seems that you're wrong.

As the claims of the gospels involve the supernatural - specifically the resurrection of the dead, I don't consider this probable at all. In fact, I know of only one case that is reliably documented - that of Jesus Christ. But as I've already stated, I'm willing to explore the possibility that this event was not reliably documented. Another unique case we find that is possible and yet highly improbable is the universe coming into existence.

While I appreciate DTC's position and understand it is attractive given the consequences of the alternative, I'm not willing to assume that position by influence of arguments given in defense of 1. a "consensus of modern scholarship" (that is apparently undefinable) and 2. his worldview of philosophic naturalism (even though he says no such thing exists).

The very fact that one has to argue for their philosophy to prove their philosophy proves arguments don't matter - only the scientific method does - should make us highly suspicious.

RGD

Your ability to utter falsehoods is duly noted.

You should read more. I recommend the Christian Bible, for example: there was this chappie named Lazarus....

What is the possible relevance of the two things? We have empirical evidence for the big bang; we have no actual empirical evidence for the 'universe coming into existence'.