Freethought & Rationalism Archive

leonarde · 09-27-2002, 06:33 AM

Posted by Vorkosigan:

Quote:

As far as I know you have not presented any compelling argument that rules out all other gods
(and unknown or alien technologies) while simultaneously confirming your own as the author of the Lourdes events. The RCC has no such protocol.

What would (even in a most hypothetical sense)constitute such a "protocol"???

Cheers!

leonarde · 09-27-2002, 07:28 AM

Posted by Vorkosigan:

Quote:

1)virtually all the pilgrims (seriously ill or not)take a bath in water and/or drink from water from a spring only discovered in 1858 in connection with the apparitions.

This, alas, is incorrect.

I thank you for the link. However, as someone who
has been to Lourdes twice, I can say from personal
observation that it istrue that virtually
all the pilgrims (ie people who actually
go to the grotto) at least drink the water. In warm weather probably most take a bath in the water.
The list provided deals with persons whose cures
are attributed to "Aquero" and that, as you noted,
sometimes is from afar.

Cheers~!

Radorth · 09-27-2002, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Given the state of affairs one must conclude that there is not a single Christian with faith the size of a mustard seed.

Point well taken.

Radorth

Layman · 09-27-2002, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Family Man:
Really, Layman, this is getting way too silly. I'm talking history, not the biased musings of Christian philosophers like Craig. He doesn't do history and you know he doesn't do history. He does apologetics. Didn't he say something to the effect that if the evidence was against Christianity he would still believe because he believes he knows in his heart it was true? That sounds like a man who takes an objective approach to history? He has no standards; he starts with the assumption that Christianity is true.

Which of William L. Craig's historical or philosophical books have you read?

Quote:

If any of those other philosophers are anything like Craig, I see no reason to waste any time on them. Why should anyone waste time on writers who have no interest in objectivity at all?

Which proves my point. You assume that miracles can never be proven so you then confidently assert that there were no miracles. And that no one who asserts that there may be sufficient historical evidence of a miracle to justify belief is worth reading.

Even Loweder had some nice things to say about Stephen Davis:

Quote:

Although Stephen T. Davis is a professor of philosophy, he appears to know the resurrection narratives as well as any Biblical scholar. In this comprehensive treatment of the resurrection, Davis addresses a wide variety of issues, including miracles, critical history, the concept of resurrection, the empty tomb story, dualism, physicalism, immortality, and apologetics. Along the way, he presents a sophisticated defense of the orthodox position against a number of objections. But Davis does more than just answer objections to Christian belief in the resurrection. He also presents what he calls a "soft apologetic" for the resurrection. What this means is that, unlike some apologists, Davis is NOT trying to show that nonbelief in the resurrection is irrational. Rather, he is simply trying to show that, from a supernaturalist perspective, belief in the resurrection is rational.

I, for one, am happy to accept that, for certain supernaturalists in certain epistemic circumstances, belief in the resurrection can be rational. But I also happen to think (and perhaps Davis would agree) that, for other persons in other epistemic circumstances, nonbelief in the resurrection can be rational. I am not just talking about naturalists here. Suppose we put aside all worries about the existence of God and the problem of miracles. Assume that there is a God who performs miracles from time to time. The
crucial question is whether the resurrection is one of those miracles. In other words, did Jesus really rise from the dead?

.... Anyone interested in the historicity of the resurrection will definitely want to become familiar with Davis's book.

I excluded the section elipsed for the sake of space, but they are Loweder's critique of elements of Davis' argument about the resurrection. And I actually think Davis's treatment on some aspects of the resurrection are underdeveloped as well, but I also found Davis' discussion of belief in an event like the resurrection based on historical evidences as well as his discussion on bodily resurrection as a concept to be excellent.

Quote:

A basic assumption of history is that supernatural events are not verifiable, thus not historical. This is not "my" assumption. This is the assumption of every historian I've ever read or studied under. This is the assumption of E.P Sanders, of Michael Grant, of Raymond Brown, all of whom you've cited in the past but now you scurry away from because there are those other nice, Christian authors who are much more palatable to your taste.

Again with the loaded term "verifiable."

Do you realize how petty you can get in your arguments? I am not "scurrying away" from Sanders, Grant, or Brown. I cite them when I find them convincing and I disagree with them with I disagree with them. Just as everyone does. It is plainly disenguous of you to suggest that by citing an author for a proposition that I have to agree with ever proposition that author advances. Because I know you do no such thing -- no one does. Do you agree with Grant that the empty tomb story is historically correct? Or with Grant and Sanders that Jesus' followers really experienced resurrection appearances? No, but does that mean you cannot talk about their assumptions re: history? Of course not.

Quote:

The fact is: I'm not begging the question. I'm simply resisting your attempt to replace the assumption that is universily used in the field t with one used only by Christians so that they can justify their beliefs. Can you tell us what the standards are that your Christian scholars use? Are they used by secular scholars on topics unrelated to religion? Are they used by anyone outside of your narrow Christian minority that needs to "prove" that Jesus rose (so they can imply he was a god, even if they don't want to say it directly)? If not, how dare you tell us they have anything to do with serious historical scholarship?

The historical methods are pretty much the same, the issue is whether methodological naturalism should be used to "prove" that no miracles occur anywhere ever -- which, being only an assumption, it cannot do.

So you are just begging the question. You are concluding that no miracles occur because you are assuming that there can be no historical evidence for any miracle occurring.

As I said above, your assumption is a philosophical one, not a historical one. Which is why I cited several respected philosophers who have address the issue of historical knowledge of so-called "miraculous events." Most historians are not trained philosophers, nor do they spend much time contemplating the philosophy underyling their assumptions.

As stated by a very respected historian in one of the leading historical textbooks:

Quote:

The majority of practicing historians take a hostile, or indifferent attitude toward the philosophy of history, which is thinking about hte ultimate nature of historical reality, the process of gaining historical knowledge, and the moral assumptions underlying histoicla judgments.

Norman E. Cantor & Richard Schneider, How to Study History, at 259-60.

Quote:

It's this simple. "My" assumption is widely used it the field, over all ideologies, including Christian ones. Yours appear to be used by only a small minority of questionable scholars whose main purpose is apologetics, not history. And that still strikes me as special pleading, however it is disguised.

The only reason you claim my scholars are "questionable" is because they disagree with your presumption. You have never read anything written by anyone of them. So your only basis for your evaluation of them is their disagreement with you starting assumption. Which -- once again -- demonstrates that your argument is nothing more than the restating of your conclusion again and again and again and again.

And I've demolished your misuse of the "special pleading" argument. You just do not seem to understand what the term means or what affect it has on the discussion.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

NOGO · 09-27-2002, 10:19 AM

NOGO:
Given the state of affairs one must conclude that there is not a single Christian with faith the size of a mustard seed.

Radorth:
Point well taken.

NOGO:
I am glad that you liked it.
I am absolutely sure that you know that it was posted with a good dose of cynicism.

Jesus also said that anything that you asked in his name you will obtain.

Show us.

[ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

brighid · 09-27-2002, 11:15 AM

Quote:

Treating "the Bible" as either wholly true or false is not a very informed view. "The Bible" is not one source, it is many sources. Just how many may be a point of dispute, but taking it as "all or nothing" is not good history.

But isn't the entire Bible inspired and guided by ONE and the same? Didn't this God give the information, revelation, etc. to ALL of these people and therefore there really aren't "different" sources (but again ONE and the same?) So why couldn't He control something called consistency?

Brighid

Radorth · 09-27-2002, 11:17 AM

Quote:

As far as I know you have not presented any compelling argument that rules out all other gods

AA recovery rate when Jesus was always the "higher power": 78%

AA recovery rate in India, employing the powers of gods like Mithra: 6%

Criminy. 6% would give it up by praying to FamilyMan.

Don't you hate facts? I do.

Radorth

Layman · 09-27-2002, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by brighid:
<strong>

But isn't the entire Bible inspired and guided by ONE and the same? Didn't this God give the information, revelation, etc. to ALL of these people and therefore there really aren't "different" sources (but again ONE and the same?) So why couldn't He control something called consistency?

Brighid</strong>

I was discussing history, not theology.

brighid · 09-27-2002, 11:37 AM

Well then ... you can still answer the question can't ya? So, are you saying that the Bible is a historical book, a theological book, some combination thereof and how is one to determine which parts are theology, history, or a mish-mash of both?

Furthermore if you believe the Bible is the work of the Judeo-Christian God wouldn't you also conclude that said historical recollections were guided by this God and therefore be authentic, or atleast more credible then other Holy Texts claiming miracles?

Brighid

Peter Kirby · 09-27-2002, 05:46 PM

Radorth, what is your source? I was not aware that Mithra was worshipped by any significant number of people in India today.

best,
Peter Kirby

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

09-27-2002, 10:19 AM	#115
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	NOGO: Given the state of affairs one must conclude that there is not a single Christian with faith the size of a mustard seed. Radorth: Point well taken. NOGO: I am glad that you liked it. I am absolutely sure that you know that it was posted with a good dose of cynicism. Jesus also said that anything that you asked in his name you will obtain. Show us. [ September 27, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]</p>

09-27-2002, 11:37 AM	#119
brighid Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: somewhere in the known Universe Posts: 6,993	Well then ... you can still answer the question can't ya? So, are you saying that the Bible is a historical book, a theological book, some combination thereof and how is one to determine which parts are theology, history, or a mish-mash of both? Furthermore if you believe the Bible is the work of the Judeo-Christian God wouldn't you also conclude that said historical recollections were guided by this God and therefore be authentic, or atleast more credible then other Holy Texts claiming miracles? Brighid

09-27-2002, 05:46 PM	#120
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Radorth, what is your source? I was not aware that Mithra was worshipped by any significant number of people in India today. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.