Justin

You're quite correct--the only point I considered was the possibility that Littlefoot's words would be interpreted as an ad hominem. This would cause some opponents in a debate to reject the information following the putatively insulting remarks, regardless of their validity.

Was it "uncharitable?" Perhaps, but in a no-holds-barred debate, a lack of charity will probably be the least objectionable absence.

True, and Littlefoot explained the difference between his actual intended audience and my perception. However, since I didn't explicitly state it: you're quite correct that this was due to my mis-perception. I don't know if it actually qualifies as a non sequiter, but it was definitely an error on my part.

Clutch, you're quite correct that I didn't give a fully stated academic treatment of my specific counter-claims, but at worst that makes my actions the second wrong that does not make a right. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is not scholarship, it's sloganship--a quick and wonderful phrase that looks absolutely brilliant on a bumper-sticker, but does little to add to understanding in any context. I'll illustrate with the next section.

The big problem with this is that, generally speaking, historicity of any specific event is not evaluated on the basis of the supposed "probability" of the claims--historicity is evaluated by the evidence of the occurrence. The word "probability" in the sense that you use it is not a valid method of inquiry in history. In that sense, "improbable" historical events happen all the time: the American Revolution was one such "improbable" event, in that before that time few colonies had successfully separated themselves from the "parent" country.

Christians do not ask me to accept the "improbable"--they ask me to accept a miracle, a specific event that is unique, but that is also removed from the normal "cause and effect" that probability can analyze. Because Christians posit the intervention of God, robability" does not enter the picture.

Well, in the case of the Resurrection, there is little evidence outside of the Biblical text, and (to the best of my knowledge) most of the extra-biblical textual evidence (such as Josephus) is questionable. OK, fine, the Biblical text is the primary evidence offered for the resurrection. Yet the texts can be evaluated--the variants in different manuscripts, the similarity of Christian myth to pre-existing Pagan myths, critical analysis of the texts as they stand...and so on. None of these rely on "probability," with the possible exception of critical analysis--even at that, probability only enters into the picture if you have two (or more) alternative readings of the same passage that are all of the same age, and no other clue on which is the "original" reading.

One does not need to resort to "probability" to analyse the Christian claim that Jesus rose from the dead. They base the claim on the text: why not use the tools that are available, rather than tools such as probability that are less appropriate for the task?

Well, that's fine: my post certainly wasn't the pinnacle of either rhetoric or logic, as I'll freely admit. My arguments were not nicely academic, footnoted, and acceptable for academic or formal debate--if I had intended them to be so, I would have written them in that fashion.

Clutch, it's as I told Littlefoot ... I don't particularly fancy rhetorical debate. Some people do: De gustibus non est disputandum. I'm not here to impress people with my brilliance, which is a good thing because I don't particularly feel that I have much brilliance to impress people with.

I can give an honest and forthright analysis of problems that I see with arguments. Sometime my analysis is not entirely accurate: in this case, I missed that Littlefoot was specifically targeting Fundamentalist Christians, not Christianity as a whole. Yet I would certainly like to think that, even as flawed and limited as I may be, my point of view may have some relevance.

On a good day I can tell a hawk from a handsaw. Perhaps this simply wasn't one of my better days.

Justin

Justin

:blush: You're right--I forgot to explicitly spell out the steps on how to use the quote tags. Sorry about that: Sven and Peter gave a much clearer explanation.


Oh, certainly they do. From my point of view, if I were a Christian, an essay like yours would probably get rejected ... possibly on the points I mentioned in the first post, possibly for other reasons, but probably not for reasons that would be central to your arguments.

See, that's the basic problem I saw with the OP--you made a great point, that many Christians do use a double standards when it comes to evaluating evidence. You gave a wonderful example of that double standard--yes, there were flaws (or, at least, there were elements that could be exploited as putative flaws), but there was also solid logic there.

The problem is that those putative flaws left a Christian a valid way to reject the post without having to evaluate the core logic of the argument.

I have ... oddly enough, on a Christian forum! As surprising as it is, on one of the Christian forums I'm on, the moderators swiftly trounce any Christian who comes on with the "hard and heavy" debate tactics. What makes it even stranger, these guys are a mixture of Fundamentalists and Evangelicals! o_O They're not perfect, by any means--if something comes up that they can't respond to within the Christian paradigm, they frequently do not respond at all, but it's refreshing nonetheless.

But you're quite correct that in most circumstances, most Fundamentalist Christians will apply one standard to the Bible, and a lesser standard to any other literature. :shrug: Kind of goes with the territory.

I'm not ... but I'll bet you a dollar to a stale doughnut that someone will, and they'll use that accusation to reject anything you say.

The ONLY anhistorical assumption I saw you make regarded the Church's involvement in the Witch Craze, and the acceptance of the Malleus by the Church. And as I said, this would be the information that most people would get from popular press sources, or (until recently) even from the academic sources. If you get a chance for more research, plug "Jenny Gibbons witch hunts european" into your preferred search engine, and look for an article called "Recent Discoveries in the European Witch Hunts," or something similar. (I'd give the URL directly, but I'm typing this off-line and can't access a search engine.)

Justin

Clutch

Thanks for your reply.


Well, there's not much "perhaps" about it. And my point was precisely that a no-holds-barred debate was what you were disavowing, and from some considerable height in the moral topography, as it seemed.


I incline to agree with this; it's pretty much clearing one's throat. But that's very different from claiming that it is a contentful view that is generally academically rejected. That claim is false, probably on both counts.


Hmm... while I am unsure of your method of determining the particular notion of probability I have in mind, I'll let that go for now. I simply caution that history, and the history of history, are littered with the wreckage of such pronouncements about valid and invalid methods. I have yet to see any domain of intellectual inquiry in which the use of probability is an invalid method.


This raises big and interesting questions that we can't decisively answer here. (I expect.)

The essential point to make, however, is that we do indeed have extraordinarily strong evidence that the American Revolution occurred. Suppose the only evidence we had for this claim was a single text of uncertain provenance. Then the contrast with a similarly uncertain text from the same time, according to which (say) the author was a man named John who saw a brown bear in the Pennsylvania woods, would be rather stark. There is a degree of epistemic uncertainty U such that, on the strength of U-evidence, there would be no good reason to withhold rational assent from the latter claim; it would, on that basis, be rationally (though defeasibly) believable. Yet for the former claim U-evidence would not suffice, precisely because it is, ceteris paribus, much less probable.


This is no more correct a characterization of all Christians than littlefoot's initial argument. Though he slaloms between allusions to probability and to plausibility, William Lane Craig is just one apolog-/homil-etics practitioner who appeals to the Resurrection as the likeliest explanation of certain alleged facts.

And, eschewing mere rhetoric, we must all be unimpressed by the argument from I Consistently Put Your Terms In Shudder Quotes. Suffice it to say that the notion of probability is vastly broader in its application than merely the occasions for deploying Bayes' Theorem.


Equally likely (viz, equally probable) is that my wind is blowing from the wrong direction. But I think we have interesting differences of opinion, and I hope we'll get a chance to follow them up at some point -- not, I think, right now, on account of I'm up to here with other work.

Llyricist

Actually the statement in question was rather the REVERSE of an ad hominem. An Ad Hominem would be when you attack an argument based on the arguers character, without touching the actual argument. The statement in question "attacked" the arguers character based on the actual argument.

Littlefoot

How about if I used the word Consistant as someone else suggested? If christians are being consistant with their argumentation

If someone ignores an otherwise good argument because of one problem with it then they're not very likely to change their minds on much to begin with.
They'd be commiting a worse falacy.


Littlefoot: In other words your hypothetical christian objectinist is saying "No fair! i resemble that remark and so i'm not going to listen to you!"


Littlefoot: Would you please address the fact that authors of the malleus were running around with a papal bull (full link provided multible times) granting them the right to question and torture people? What the church did 100+ years is rather irrelevant to your assertation that the malleus is an ahistorical source.


Littlefoot: at a quick glance it appears to be saying that the church wasn't as culpable as popularly beleived, which is true, but does not in any way refute the idea that the church was completely innocent of the events, particularly in the earlier periods of the hunts.

Justin

Preachin' to the choir on that one! However, if you've ever debated Theists, you know many of them'll do it every time.

Not me, of course. I'm so much better than the average theist. :Cheeky:

Do you want the whole argument? I'ts rather long and more than a bit dry.

Short form is this:
1: Witchcraft was not just a religious crime: it was also a secular crime. Indeed, far more witch trials and witch killings occurred in secular courts than in ecclesiastical courts. The actual crime was malefica--not so much casting spells, but casting magic that:

2: Additionally, witches who cast malefica were adjudged guilty of heresy. This was not just an ecclesiastical crime: this was also a crime against the Church as a political power--somewhat similar to treason, because they had defied the "spiritual power" of the Church.

However, the real problem with these two assertions is that while they were the theory behind the law, the Church didn't act on it all that often. The Church seemed to prefer penance to death.

3: Much of the "witch craze" was a grass roots panic that occurred in areas where central government (including Church government) had broken down. Ireland--staunchly Catholic until well after the Witch Craze--only killed four witches in its entire history. Germany killed hundreds, but the worst period was during the Reformation, when central authority had weakened. England's worst witch craze was during the Civil War between Cromwell and the Stuart Kings.

Did the Catholic Church kill (suspected) witches? Yep--so did the Lutherans, the Church of England, and probably a few more Protestants here and there. Secular governments of the time killed many more. It was a valid law according to legal theory of the time, and as horrific as it is to us today, to them it was as necessary as hanging murderers.

Justin

Littlefoot

Littlefoot: So you suggest that i prepare for something i know that they'll do by leaving myself open to something i know that they're going to do (put different criterea for biblical and other works)


Quote:
Littlefoot: Would you please address the fact that authors of the malleus were running around with a papal bull (full link provided multible times) granting them the right to question and torture people? What the church did 100+ years is rather irrelevant to your assertation that the malleus is an ahistorical source.


Do you want the whole argument? I'ts rather long and more than a bit dry.


Littlefoot: That does not prevent it from being a religious crime that was persecuted by the church. That the secular authorities did it more often does not mean that the church didn't do it. That the church did it at ALL proves my point inso far as i need to make it: That people with church sanction were hunting witches. These people claim to be eyewitnesses. thats one of the reasons for beleiving the biblical accounts and it applies here as well.

I honestly can't get over the sense that you feel your on some new secret inside info on history that no one else has and wanted to show it off. I haven't been running around claiming 9 million burned witches, or said that the world would have been better off without the catholic church. All i have said is that the church beleived in witches and sanctioned some of their hunters, and thus these guys have a fair amount of credibility for their claims, at least as much as biblical figures for whom we're lucky to know anything beyond their name and mayby profession. You called that ahistorical. I would ask at this point that you, for once, answer directly to the evidence submited that these people had a papal bull or retract your claim. Showing that the church changed its mind 100 years latter does not negate them having sanctioned some of the hunters. Showing that the secular court was worse does not negate the church sanctioning some of the hunters.







Quote:
Originally Posted by Summa Desiderantes
have slain infants yet in the mother's womb, as also the offspring of cattle, have blasted the produce of the earth, the grapes of the vine, the fruits of the trees, nay, men and women, beasts of burthen, herd-beasts, as well as animals of other kinds, vineyards, orchards, meadows, pasture-land, corn, wheat, and all other cereals; these wretches furthermore afflict and torment men and women, beasts of burthen, herd-beasts, as well as animals of other kinds, with terrible and piteous pains and sore diseases, both internal and external; they hinder men from performing the sexual act and women from conceiving, whence husbands cannot know their wives nor wives receive their husbands....

Littlefoot: if thats not verbatum out of the bull i showed you its close. The church put its stamp of approval on those as the facts of reality.


Littlefoot: Would you please respond to the "particular methods" outlined in the papal bull, (which seems to be indicating the prescription of torture). That the church tonned down its use latter is a non sequetor. That they helped orphans and widows is likewise a non sequetor. All you have done so far is insert an anacronistic 16th century church atop the 15th century one i am describing and claim that mine is ahistorical.




Littlefoot: and what has that got to do with the price of tea in china? I claim a papal bull as a character witness for the credentals of two self proclaimed eyewitnesses for the supernatural power of witches. You claim that they don't have church sanction... by pointing out that 100 years latter things weren't that way.. who's using a historical material here? If the catholic church at the highest levels had The two inquisitors who wrote the malleus torture ONE... just ONE witch then i've made my point that they had church sanction and their eyewitness testimony bears some weight. You've offered nothing to counteract that idea from their own time.

pierneef

I have no idea why it is necessary to bring issues of witchcraft into this debate, which is about the resurrection of Jesus. I have (painfully) ploughed through this thread, and most of it appears to be irrelevant to the originally posed issue. How the church may have reacted to the concept of the resurrection in later times, and its other obsessions, have no great bearing on whether there is any historicity in the story of Jesus's resurrection. In terms of the life of the Church, this is a pretty ancient Pauline concept (with redactions and interpolations added to the chosen Gospels to bring them into line with the "Party View".

As was mentioned at one point, there were many pagan traditions of gods dying and becoming resurrected, so there was rich material for Paul Inc. to draw upon. There were, in all likelihood, two impulses which gave rise to the resurrection tradition; the first was the yearning of Jesus' followers, who in the wake of his death found it impossible to accept his disappearance and apparent failure to overthrow the Roman occupation and restore the Temple and the Kingdom of Judea. The second was Paul's introduction of the completely alien gnostic/mystical concept of Jesus' divinity. Many things were interpolated into the tradition, to establish that divinity (Virgin Birth, the Transformation, the Resurrection and Ascension, among others). Given that Paul was in the business of converting pagans, it was convenient to absorb pagan myths into the reworked Jesus tradition, in the same way as a number of pagan dieties were sanctified to help the process of conversion.

None of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses. They are an amalgam of the original tradition, developments of that tradition in the Pauline (but not Jamesian [original]) movement; and later interpolations to make the Gospels acceptable to the Roman conversion to Christianity. I have read of no scholar who regards the author of Q as a living witness either.

Littlefoot

littlefoot: I feel that there are a great deal of similarities between the two accounts and any differences tend to make the malleus more reliable than the bible. From there it works out in one of three ways

1) The Ressurection is supposed to be accepted as historical fact but other supernatural events are not, thus showing special pleading on the part of those making the argument from history and negating the argument.

2) Demonstrate that a small number of eye witness accounts are insufficient to establish an unlikely event as history, and thus negate the argument from history

3) If both the events described in the malleus and the bible meet historical criterea then supernatural power using witches are real. It would then become difficult if not impossible to rule out witchcraft, sorcery, and illusion in any and all events considered divine.

3)

Justin

Nope. I suggest that since they're going to assign a different standard to the Bible (as opposed to other "text witnesses"), that you take into account whythey're doing it. You already know it's going to happen ... they already know they do it, and they already know that you believe it to be a dishonest double-standard. Instead of throwing that presumed "dishonesty" at them, if you insist on critiquing the behavior, why not do so from a pointof view where they can see what they're doing in such a manner that ... maybe, just maybe ... offers them an opportunity to change the behavior.

That's where it comes to the crunch, Littlefoot: what's your purpose in confronting this type of behavior? Are you just out to twig someone for their idiocy? :shrug: OK, have fun. In my mind, twigging someone for their idiocy is just as silly as the idiocy is, but if that's how you get your kicks, then whatever floats your boat.

But if you want to offer these people an opportunity to see (what you evidently perceive as) a flaw in their way of seeing the world, I honestly think you'ld get a lot better results by offering a way out of the trap, rather than browbeating. Hey, I assume that you don't care for it when some Christian tries to browbeat you into "getting saved"--if you don't like it when it's done to you, why do it to them?

Well, within the context of establishing that the Church (as well as secular law) arrested, tried, and convicted witches, yeah, you're spot on. :shrug: I do feel that some of the assertions you made in the OP are off-base: not, strictly, incorrect (though there may be some that are), but they don't state the full picture, and the picture that they do present is inaccurate enough to detract from your main thesis. Someone's gonna twig you on it, and a lot of people are gonna reject your main thesis because of faults in your proofs. But it's up to you--correct it, or don't.

:shrug: And if I was?

None of the stuff I've talked about is "secret inside info." It's all out there in public for anyone who wants to do a bit of research. And as for "wanted to show it off," well, if that's what you feel my motivation was, then that's your opinion. Have fun with it.

Justin