Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-24-2006, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

You're miscasting my position here. I won't accuse you of outright dishonesty, as I think this is our point of contention. Lying and a difference of view with regards to the facts are clearly two different categories.

The evidence already exists DTC.

What evidence?

Quote:

Even the "consensus of modern scholars" agrees that the NT manuscripts are authentic ancient documents.

So what? So is the Iliad.

Quote:

Can you muster an argument using other ancient literature that gives a different account of Christ's life that you believe is true?

I don't have any belief about the life of Jesus. I don't know that he existed at all. In point of fact, there is lots of other "ancient literature" alleging all kinds of things about Jesus. Pretty much none of it, canonical or otherwise, is credible as authentic history.

What point are you trying to make with this question anyway? Can you come up with an alternate ancient history of Achilles that contradicts Homer? I guess Homer must be true then.

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-24-2006, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

Subject to the "consensus of modern scholarship"?

Not at all.

TomboyMom · 04-24-2006, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

emphasis mine.

"Universally acknowledged"? Shouldn't Norm be storming in here right about now, blowing the whistle and throwing the flag for moving the goal posts?

You are after the wrong thing in my humble opinion. I'm after the truth here. Not "universal acknowledgement" and/or the "consensus of a group of scholars". The history of science and human events is literally a record replete with examples of the consensus being wrong. Universal acknowledgement is the wrong goal post. The question is "are the gospel accounts true or not"? The "opinions of scholars" is an important piece of evidence that might help us avoid common pitfalls when investigating the claims of the NT. But that piece of evidence is not the final arbiter of truth. To define reality or truth as "whatever the scholars say", or to declare that reality must fit a philosophy of naturalism is the samething as putting our goal post on wheels and rolling it to wherever the evidence ball is kicked.

I didn't say that just because the consensus of modern scholarship holds something to be true that it necessarily is true. However I have neither the expertise nor the time to dispute them, so I will provisionally take their opinion as true until you, Patriot7, convince me otherwise. Please do so.

Patriot7 · 04-24-2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognac

Not where the supernatural is concerned. If you insist on that worldview, you have no means of distinguishing the truth between any two supernatural claims.

I'm not insisting on either worldview. This tangent discussion of worldviews is only useful as it applies to investigating the gospel claims. To exclude the claims to advance a worldview is a root error. It would be a similar mistake for me to claim the NT is true, because my worldview demands it is. I've made it clear that I'm open to exploring the notion that the gospels are not reliable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cognac

Based on empiricism, there is a means of determining what is true, or even whether a statement can be decided. But by advocating the supernatural, you disqualify these principles.

Cognac - if you're view is right then, prove empiricism using empiricism. By your own standards your view falls. Science is undergirded by philosophy as is empiricism. Philosophic claims are not proveable by science or empiricism. Science works by method of induction. Philosophy by deduction. And as it turns out the deductive method is much more reliable. That's why science is undergirded by philosophy and not the other way around.

Patriot7 · 04-24-2006, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TomboyMom

I didn't say that just because the consensus of modern scholarship holds something to be true that it necessarily is true. However I have neither the expertise nor the time to dispute them, so I will provisionally take their opinion as true until you, Patriot7, convince me otherwise. Please do so.

I can't. If you are happy to align your beliefs with a consensus of scholars due to time or other practical constraints, then I'm not going to convince you otherwise. My intent here is not to "prove" something, as much as it is to have a reasoned discussion. Unfortunately, there are the dogmatic naturalists among us who are more committed to their belief that God doesn't exist and that the Gospels are frauds, then I am to my view. Evidentally this is not the place to ask questions!

And that's fine because I've found that dogmatism is more a function of a person and not a matter of truth. These people exist in religious circles too.

The question I have, which could be a good one for Odemus to ask his pastor is - how can we know the early Christians were even interested in recording history? Especially given the fact that most of the disciples thought He was returning in their lifetime. Your thoughts?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-24-2006, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

I can't. If you are happy to align your beliefs with a consensus of scholars due to time or other practical constraints, then I'm not going to convince you otherwise. My intent here is not to "prove" something, as much as it is to have a reasoned discussion. Unfortunately, there are the dogmatic naturalists among us who are more committed to their belief that God doesn't exist and that the Gospels are frauds, then I am to my view. Evidentally this is not the place to ask questions!

This is all completely false and disingenuous but what else is new? when did anyone say the Gospels were "frauds?" What does that even mean?

Quote:

The question I have, which could be a good one for Odemus to ask his pastor is - how can we know the early Christians were even interested in recording history?

They evidently were not. So what?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-24-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

I'm not insisting on either worldview. This tangent discussion of worldviews is only useful as it applies to investigating the gospel claims. To exclude the claims to advance a worldview is a root error.

No one is doing that. Empirical method is not a "worldview."

Quote:

It would be a similar mistake for me to claim the NT is true, because my worldview demands it is. I've made it clear that I'm open to exploring the notion that the gospels are not reliable.

And you want to do so without using rational standards of evidence which means that you're not really interested in any honest investigation at all.

Quote:

Cognac - if you're view is right then, prove empiricism using empiricism.

What do you mean by "prove empiricism." Empiricism is a methodology, not a philosophy or a worldview or a "dogma." Empirical method works to discover what we can know empirically.

Quote:

By your own standards your view falls. Science is undergirded by philosophy as is empiricism.

No they aren't.

Quote:

Philosophic claims are not proveable by science or empiricism.

We aren't discussing philospohical claims but historical ones. Empiricism is the only method available to us for investigating historical claims.

Quote:

Science works by method of induction.

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Philosophy by deduction.

Wrong again. Do you actually know what those terms mean?

Quote:

And as it turns out the deductive method is much more reliable.

Another word for deductive method is scientific method. They're essentially the same thing.

Quote:

That's why science is undergirded by philosophy and not the other way around.

There is no philosophy attendant to science. Philosophy may use science but it doesn't have to. Neither is "undergirded" by the other and you should look words up in the dictionary before you attempt to use them.

Patriot7 · 04-24-2006, 02:29 PM

If philosophy and argument are "not attendant" and less reliable then science and empiricism then why are you arguing and making philosophic truth claims as you praddle on about how right you are and how wrong I am?

Diogenes the Cynic · 04-24-2006, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patriot7

If philosophy and argument are "not attendant" and less reliable then science and empiricism then why are you arguing and making philosophic truth claims as you praddle on about how right you are and how wrong I am?

I'm not making any "philosophical truth claims," I'm just applying empirical method.

And it's spelled "prattle."

Patriot7 · 04-24-2006, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diogenes the Cynic

I'm not making any "philosophical truth claims," I'm just applying empirical method.

And do you believe this statment is true?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-24-2006, 02:29 PM	#228
Patriot7 Banned Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Southern California Posts: 887	If philosophy and argument are "not attendant" and less reliable then science and empiricism then why are you arguing and making philosophic truth claims as you praddle on about how right you are and how wrong I am?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.