Layman

The problem Toto, is that you have failed to prove that Licona misrepresented the state of the scholarship.

Clutch

I didn't catch the defensiveness about Acharya S. Would you mind quoting it?

Clutch

Sometimes this approach is fine. But it can be highly unprincipled, in ways that primary argumentation is not. Why? Because the probability that a writer assigns to some claim is inevitably conditioned by the probability s/he assigns to other claims. When you mix and match claims from different experts, you can easily misrepresent the evidentiary situation.

That is, choosing some specific claim C1 from authority A, and thereby presenting it as warranted, obliges you not to also choose some claim C2 from authority B, if the rejection of C2 was a key element of A's reasoning in asserting C1. You might yourself assert both C1 and C2, but it would be misrepresentative to pretend that the warrant that A ascribed to C1 survives the acceptance of C2.

I don't say that Licona's done this in this case; only that it is a special concern in any case of assembling a case by collecting single claims from a range of specialists who disagree amongst themselves. What would those in the know say about the relation between Ludemann's confidence in the reality of the resurrection experiences, and his confidence in the prospect of a hallucinatory explanation?

Layman

"It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus' death in which He appeared to them as the risen Christ."

Gerd Lüdemann

Toto

The source of that mined quote (which is also quoted on Craig's site)

Gerd Lüdemann, What Really Happened to Jesus?, trans. John Bowden (Louisville, Kent.: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995), p. 80.

I would like to know the context.

Layman

You mean like, "unless I'm quoted by an apologist, in which case it's historically unlikely"?



But yes, context is always nice.

Clutch

I'm not sure I understand the point of this. Are you suggesting that GL means by "historically certain" something other than a high degree of probability? That he means some sort of indefeasible necessity independent of any reasons he may have given for it?

That would of course be a most uncharitable interpretation of Lüdemann; we should attribute such a bizarre view only on the basis of overwhelming evidence.Indeed. Otherwise, the sort of misrepresentation I explained can be overlooked.

Layman

I think that "certain" is a very strong word.

And I think you are pissing in the wind unless you have a case to make about Licona being a liar. The problem with some skeptics is that -- despite whining about logic, rational inquiry, Occam's Razor, and unbiased exploration of ideas -- they are not content to let the debate go ahead and evaluate it, you have to get busy inventing negative character traits for the opposition. The opposition just can't be wrong, they must also be damned liars.

It's childish and tiresome and Toto's attacks were utterly baseless and themselves misleading.

Clutch

Again, I don't see how this addresses my observations. Very strong conclusions are typically based on premises. Some other claim, itself based on the negation of one of those premises, cannot be conjoined with the very strong conclusion without misrepresenting the original author's confidence and evidence.
Well, it's a fine thing that you are free to think anything that strikes you as worth thinking. Meanwhile, I've carefully and politely pointed out an inherent danger of assembling a case in the way you describe Licona's, and I've solicited the input of anyone who knows whether Ludemann's case would make this worry a live one for the case of Licona.

If you do know this, it would be a contribution for you to share it. If you don't, though, then you might reconsider who's pissing in the wind. I too find this frustrating -- as much from you, right here, as from atheist critics.Or whiners and ill-motivated hypocrites?
Why you should need to address this to me is baffling. Not only have I done nothing of the sort on this thread, but I have consistently argued against diagnosing even the most obvious howlers as lies in a variety of threads. It just doesn't fit with human psychology. "Motivated inference" is very common; outright lying relatively rare.

Quite apart from the point about assembling a case from distinct authorities, I've (politely) asked you what defensiveness about Acharya S. was amusing you on this thread, simply because I couldn't see what you were talking about. A simple citation or retraction or qualification will suffice; I don't need any more data points on the "Who's capable of being a serious jerk?" question; let's just assume it's everyone, and get on with trying to make worthwhile points with a modicum of courtesy. Deal?

Toto

I would be happy to let the debate go ahead and evaluate it, but I have seen similar debates, and I know that they have very little to do with a rational evaluation of the evidence and everything to do with performance and sound bites and emotional appeals. The debate format does not allow enough time to evaluate evidence, and places a priority on style and delivery.

I also know that Christians use these debates for recruitment. They don't need to prevail on the arguments. They only need to present enough of a show to convince their followers that they are intellectually respectable. There are enough Christians who want to think that Christianity is an acceptable choice, so they can go ahead and accept it based on their emotions. A good debate performance like William Lane Craig's allows them to feel secure in their choices and avoid thinking about them. He's obviously smart and he says he's a Christian. It must be okay!

Creationists would love to be able to get away with this, if they could just get scientists to take them seriously enough to bother debating.

But I'm sorry to have set Layman off. Please be nice to Clutch, Layman. We're not the same person.