skepticdude

In my experience debating Christians, the distinction between taking a position because it is rational, and taking a position because it is correct, is often blurred.

In other words, Christians appear to believe that if you took a position that was false, then you were always irrational to hold it.

Let's say you've been married 30 years, no hint of infidelity. Then one day, your neighbor comes over when your spouse is gone and says they saw him/her french kissing another person outside a motel at a time when they were supposed to be out of town on business.

You would be justified to meet that story with initial disbelief, even if it turned out to be true.

The point is that even if the miracles in biblical stories actually happened as reported, we would still be justified to meet them with disbelief until evidence came in that was enough to overcome the doubt (like, say, a Christian today being given God's power to do the same miracles to the the dazzled delights of trained teams of skeptics).

The lesson here is as follows: It is what the thing looks like, smells like, acts like, sounds like and feels like, not what it actually is, that counts. Very often our 5 senses tell us what a thing really is, but not always, and less so when contemplating the truth-value of an ancient historical narrative that says god did miracles.

I've tried to prove to Christians this concept of having been rationally justified to remain skeptical in the beginning, even if the miracle turns out later to have really literally happened, but they always insist that historical investigation will always lead you to what really happened if you are open enough to receive the truth.

I hate to be post-modern in my approach to doing history, but isn't my thesis basically true? Even assuming that the bible is telling the literal truth of history in the gospel, this is not apparant in the available evidence, so that the skeptical view has more rational warrant then the "correct" view. What's better, taking the more rationally warranted position, or refusing to take a position because there's always that chance that the other girl's views may turn out to be true?