Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
As I see it, we discussing two different methods of evaluating claims:
[1] Evaluate each claim by itself.
[2] Evaluate each claim in the context of our background knowledge of the world, how it works.
I am using [2]. You seem to be using [1].
So, if 10 people provide to me personal testimony that they say a man flap his arms and fly, my background knowledge of the world and how it works requires me to think of this testimonial evidence as more likely representing mistaken memory rather than actual historical fact.
Rubbish. [2]. Only [2].
Given only that much, yes.
There are reasons I keep mentioning that there are criteria for high-quality testimonial evidence and salient characteristics of the Gospel testimony.
What if it isn’t the same sort of evidence?
What if one the one hand we have lots of written material from a variety of sources and one the other hand just one story?
Paul might have been an eyewitness to his own imaginary vision of seeing Jesus and he could have died for it. But this does not mean that Jesus actually rose from the dead.
Remember, Christianity was already a religious movement before Paul converted from Judaism.
Perhaps Paul got caught up in the madness of crowds.
Think of all of those people who converted to Mormonism in the 19th century. They were caught up in the madness of crowds.
Christians who converted in the 1st and 2nd and 3rd centuries might have been caught up in the same madness of crowds situation.
That’s the same sort of evidence, but I grant that it is a real difference in the quality of the evidence.
Given a certain level of skepticism about testimonial evidence, it might make sense to accept that some Christians died and reject the evidence concerning particular people.
Maybe our difference here boils down to your higher level of skepticism towards historical testimony. You are apparently willing to not believe in Socrates, etc.
Once again, an insufficient explanation unless you add some allegations of filthy lying. As noted, the NT writers do not leave open the possibility of this sort of sole explanation.
But this sort of thing could nicely supplement a filthy-liar explanation, or a-hefty-dose-of-madness explanation.
Of course, as noted, there is not any evidence for any of your skeptical hypotheses, while there is some testimonial evidence for the Resurrection. (With nothing but corroboration from archaeology where available.)
Interestingly, I could write off masses of skeptical university scholars the way you wrote off ancient testimonial evidence.
But I could do it with a much less exotic hypothesis. All I’d have to do is say something about academic groupthink–mistaking the prestige of a view for evidential support.
But why bother? I’ve little use for hypotheses to explain what I don’t like. I’m interested in the evidence--the testimonial evidence, the archaeology, the arguments scholars use, and so on. I’ve little use for hypotheses to explain what I don’t like.
I am willing to consider the possibility that Socrates didn’t die by drinking hemlock and that some of the stories we have heard/read about Socrates are not true.
But this is primarily because I am not familiar with what scholars of ancient history have written regarded the best sources we have indicating that Socrates died drinking hemlock.
However, there is nothing out of the ordinary about a man like Socrates drinking hemlock. It is much more out of the ordinary that a man like Jesus is born of a virgin, walks on water, turns water into wine and rises from the dead.
In theory, just about anything is possible. In theory, I have the ability to teleport myself to London in an instant. But our background knowledge of the way the world actually works would persuade people to be extremely skeptical about my claim to be able to teleport myself to London.
Also, we do know that human beings do get caught up on the madness of crowds. Examples of this would be Mormonism, Islam and the worship of Zeus. Also, alien abductions are an example where people sincerely think that something happened to them that most of us believe did not happen.
So, with that background knowledge, in addition to our expanding knowledge regarding how the brains of human beings process information, we have reason to be even more skeptical about Jesus rising from the dead.
At least that’s how I see it.
I also think that the fact that the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire was Constantine in the early 4th century is an interesting fact to ponder. If Jesus really did rise form the dead because God raised Jesus from the dead (and Jesus was God), I would think that the first Christian Emperor of the Roman Empire would have existed in the 1st Century, not the 4th Century.
It seems that Christianity spread by word of mouth and by written Gospel, human to human. If God had really put his thumb on the scale, so to speak, Christianity would have spread much faster than it did.
This isn’t to say the spread of Christianity in the 1st to 4th centuries isn’t impressive. But it seems to be a natural phenomenon. It’s not like the Chinese learned about Jesus in the 1st century. And it took so long for the Christians to lock in the concept of the Trinity and Jesus being a co-equal part of that Trinity. Again, this appears to be a human concept, evolving over time.
Sure. Who isn’t?
But I’m willing to consider it like I’m willing to consider the theory that Trump is an alien lizard: It’s an idea I reject unless I come across a dramatic shift in the evidence.
Because I follow the evidence.
The evidence is plenty good, and historians know it.
On this one item, you plead ignorance of the evidence, not trusting in scholarship, even when the scholars no doubt agree, but wanting to see the evidence that convinces them. Why is that?
Indeed. And remarkable claims need better evidence. Why keep bringing it up as if we disagree?
I repeat myself: This is woefully insufficient as an explanation of the Gospel testimony, with its appeals to eyewitness testimony to what is easily verifiable. This is a fine supplement to a filthy-liars theory. All versions of your skeptical hypothesis, however, lack any evidence and neglect, for no clear reason, the existing evidence.
Why would G-d have to do things that way? He doesn’t answer to your ways or to mine. And there are reasons for humans should have a lot of responsibility for spreading the Good News.
See if you can find just one detail in the doctrine of the Trinity or in Christology that is anything more than a careful statement of what’s in the Bible.
I am not a historian and I have not evaluated the evidence regarding Socrates.
I could simply take an ancient historian’s word for it. But I am ignorant of the views of ancient historians. So, I simply say, “I don’t know.”
However, when the subject shifts towards Jesus’s alleged resurrection, I have taken the time to evaluate the evidence and the opinions of New Testament scholars and Christian Theologians.
Having done that, I believe that Jesus did not rise from the dead.
Why, in the case of Socrates, do you refuse to trust in a scholarly consensus and insist on seeing the evidence that convinces the scholars before you state any opinions of your own?
In the case of the New Testament your pattern is consistently “Look to the scholarly conclusions!” although you almost never mention the evidence that convinces them.
How interesting. Why don’t you try talking about that for a change? After all, I’ve been asking you to for weeks. What is your reason for negatively evaluating the NT evidence?
But this presupposes that God actually did intend to raise Jesus from the dead.
We have no evidence, one way or the other, of God’s intentions, assuming God exists at all.
Did God intend the Nazi Holocaust to happen? Did God intend children to die of starvation?
We don’t know if God intended these things. We don’t even know if God exists.
Gosh. Books have been written analyzing the New Testament.
How much time I could spend trying to summarize the books I have read on these issues.
And why should I summarize these books when the books can simply be checked out of the library?
What’s the point?
The Gospels are interesting reading. But I do not believe that these stories about Jesus walking on water, exorcizing demons, turning water into wine and rising from the dead are true.
No; I’m just pointing out that this objection to the Gospel testimony is illogical. You are arguing that G-d did not do something on the grounds that if G-d did something G-d would have acted like he wasn’t G-d. It’s the same logic as “HeavyWater didn’t write this comment on Ricochet because if he had he should have written it my way.”
Think of my rejoinder as an IF-THEN. IF the Gospel is true, THEN G-d has reasons to not do things the way you describe. Not a presupposition at all.
If you’re not interested in talking about the evidence with people who care about the evidence, I concur: What’s the point?
Seriously, I care about the evidence. If you just want me to know that you think such-and-such, why not just say that and then stop?
But if you want to have a conversation about the reasons for our beliefs, the evidence matters and should be the foremost topic.
What an interesting conclusion! Do you have a premise for it?
What I am doing is comparing the way the world actually appears and the way that the world would likely have appeared if God had intervened.
You can say, as you have, that God could have wanted to make the world appear as though God had not intervened.
Maybe God likes to keep himself hidden. Maybe that’s why God allowed Islam to emerge in the 7th century, to keep people on their toes, wondering, “Gee, is Christianity the one true faith? Or is Islam the one true faith? Oh, but how about Judaism? What about Hinduism? Hmmm.”
But now we either have a God that does not exist, except in our imaginations or a God that acts (and does not act) in ways that make it appears as though he doesn’t exist.
People don’t walk on water. There are no demons and therefore there is no exorcizing of demons and people can’t turn water into wine nor can they rise from the dead.
It really doesn’t have much to do with New Testament scholarship. It’s really just a question of whether one thinks walking on water is possible and if walking on water is possible, when does it happen and why does it happen.
I don’t think these things happen, therefore, when I read a story about these things happening, I don’t believe the story is true.
Sorry. Overwrote this comment while trying to reply!
Hard to do this on a phone!
Ok, so your evidence is that you rule out the supernatural from the start, prior to experience, prior to investigation.
As for me, I am an empiricist, and I care about the evidence.
So now we have to presuppose that both the New Testament and Old Testament are true.
Sure, if we presuppose that, of course one would conclude that Jesus rose from the dead.
Two people can care about the evidence, read a story and the result can be that one person thinks the story is true and the other person thinks that the story if false.
I can about evidence. But I don’t simply accept the truth of someone’s testimony, whether that testimony is oral or written.
No. That is precisely what I am not doing. Attend please to the logic. It’s an IF-THEN.
I am talking about what you are talking about: how things would likely have gone under G-d’s guidance. We are disagreeing about which way would be more likely.
Indeed. Whoever did?
Ok, but then neither of them should rule out a conclusion prior to examining the evidence and then cite his ruling it out as evidence.
Agreed.
Exactly.
Seriously?
You’re refuting yourself.
Now why not follow through on it and become a Christian?
I have read the entire Bible and I am not convinced that Jesus rose from the dead.
I’m not going to lie to you and tell you that after reading the gospels I now believe that Jesus really did rise from the dead.
I remain unconvinced after evaluating the evidence.
Do you have some problem with the evidence other than the one you’ve just joined me in refuting?
Written testimony isn’t convincing evidence that a human being rose from the dead.
What an interesting conclusion! Do you have a new premise for it?