Originally Posted by Victor Reppert

Here's the Hanson passage:
Suppose . . . that on next Tuesday morning, just after breakfast, all of us in this one world are knocked to our knees by a percussive and ear-shattering thunderclap. Snow swirls; leaves drop from trees; the earth heaves and buckles; buildings topple and towers tumble; the sky is ablaze with an eerie silvery light. Just then, as all the people of the earth look up, the heavens open - the clouds pull apart - revealing an unbelievably immense and radiant Zeus-like figure, towering above us like a hundred Everests. He frowns darkly as lightening plays across the features of his Michelangeloid face. He then points down - at me! - and exclaims for every man who man and child to hear, " I have had quite enough of your too-clever logic-chopping and word-watching in matters of theology. Be assured Norwood Russell Hanson, that I do most certainly exist!"

Then he remarks, "The conceptual point is that if such a remarkable event were to transpire, I, for one, would certainly be convinced that God does exist."*

But suppose instead of it happening to you, you hear about it from a bunch of people who, as a group, are pretty skeptical and realiable. If you're David Hume, you still have to say it didn't happen.
Victor Reppert

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Well, Marian apparitions have even appeared on TV and been seen by millions, but I doubt Hume would be upset.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Maybe 'precautions apparently making fraud impossible' is begging the question but I don't think so.
Andrew Criddle

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

And James was not a disciple, so your arguments are as logical as they always are. (Somebody who produces an Argument from Reason should once or twice produce reasonable arguments)



Why suppose things which aren't true?

VR:I'm trying to explicate Hume here. His claim is that any naturalistic theory is better than a supernaturalist one. So even if the TT is refuted, Hume's claim is that it's preferable to a resurrection.

So you aren't claiming to refute the theft theory at all, you are just saying that it would be refuted , if there was a refutation??

VR:I think the theft theory is pretty much a nonstarter. After looking at it a little more closely I'm inclined to think that the very risky behavior on the part of people like Peter (telling the people who got a man crucified them that the man they put to death had been vindicated through a resurrection, a comment surely designed to anger those who instigated his crucifixion) is perhaps even stronger evidence against this theory than the actual martyrdoms. (Though of course you're probably going to say that most of Acts is made up.) There are two things to account for: the empty tomb and the appearances. Now if the people who were appeared to were the conspirators, then the theft theory explains the resurrection story away. If not, it solves only half the problem.

Let's put it this way. Suppose Hume is right and we can rule out any supernatural explanations, and we have to account for the arising of the resurrection accounts naturalistically. Theft theory is way down the list of plausible alternatives. Do you take the theory seriously yourself?

Please refute the theory that Joseph of Arimathea stole the body.

Please show that Josephus records how James could have recanted and saved his life. (Your ability to get all that from Jospehus is remarkable)

Originally Posted by Steven Carr

*All* the people in the world are knocked to the ground and yet there are people who hear about it only from their friends??? Victor, are you trying to destroy your reputation as a logician???

Originally Posted by Victor Reppert

Steven: Isn't this a little bit of a cheap shot here? Surely the example can be easily fixed so that, say, a number of people in Phoenix, including Jim Lippard, (who does skeptical investigations of paranormal and supernatural claims) see it and report it to me. According to Hume, I'm supposed to disbelieve them all.

Victor

Originally Posted by Victor Reppert

VR: And your reading of what I have to say is as careful as usual. I didn't say that James was a disciple, I didn't say that James was given the opportunity to repent, I asked you if you thought that there were no first-century Christian martyrs. It was a simple, direct, point-blank question. Yes or no.

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think Hume could plausibly argue that given good evidence of millions of people having testified as to an extraordinary event which they claimed to have witnessed , the event would no longer be contrary to general human experience and hence would be credible.

What Hume is claiming is that good evidence of say up to forty apparently utterly sincere and reliable people testifying with apparent utter conviction and certainty to a miraculous event is not convincing.

This position of Hume's has IMO worrying consequences of general skepticism as to testimony, however I think the problems caused by the testimony of a really vast group of people to an extraordinary event are rather different.

Andrew Criddle