(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen...
Stephen Law is a philosopher and author. Currently Director of Philosophy and Cert HE at Oxford University Department of Continuing Education. Stephen has also published many popular books including The Philosophy Gym, The Complete Philosophy Files, and Believing Bullshit. For school talks/ media: stephenlaw4schools.blogspot.co.uk Email: think-AT-royalinstitutephilosophy.org
Comments
Perhaps not, in the sense that there is nothing limiting people of all different kinds of religions, and who lack a religion, engaging in terrorism.
However, Islam certainly does provide a theological context in which, I regard, violence (of which terrorism is a particular manifestation) is supported.
"Rousseau is now turning in his grave as his country of origin succumb to the intimidation and fear mongering of the Swiss People’s Party. The Social Contract makes a moving intellectual appeal for the establishment of a free society, governed by a common will directed towards protecting the rights and dignity of all citizens. The first sentence of the book celebrates freedom as the birth right of all people: “Man was born free but is everywhere is bondage.” He, however, reminds those who care about freedom that it can only be maintained through a commitment to the principle of equality rights and dignity of all people. Chapter eleven of the book begins with the admonishment that “liberty cannot subsist without equality.” "
I notice Muslim rights groups are firm supporters of pluralism and multi-culturalism in Western countries but remain firmly opposed to liberalism and secularism in general.
Our equivalent in Ireland are quite capable of publishing articles justifying stoning for adultery and homosexual acts or overthrowing the Irish constitution by implementing shariah law and yet a day later publish articles on mutual respect or comparing Muslims to black civil rights activists like Malcom X.
The policy seems pretty straightforward : Take everything, give nothing. For we are right.
http://www.conspiracycafe.net/forum/index.php?/topic/25104-atheist-apocalypse/page__pid__117856__st__0&
'I am a Muslim and I accept the theory of biological evolution. At the same time, I can see how this idea can offend and how it can be misconstrued as being in conflict with Quranic statements. Nevertheless, I would submit, with respect, that denying the phenomenon would be irrational. I am not going to refer you to parts of the Quran or Hadees that contradict evolution, or parts that uphold it. I think it is pointless to take recourse to words in a religious text in order to validate or invalidate the observation of natural phenomena.
Different people can always find different meanings in the same words, which is why observations that pass the rigors of the scientific method must
supersede any convictions based on the interpretations of language.'
So why be a Muslim if you are going to test the Koran against reality, rather than test reality against the Koran?
Yes, they call it 'Taqiyya' - in other words, dissimulation - a two-faced posture justified by many Islamic theologians where it is deemed necessary to defend and promote their faith.
"Second, anyone has the right to choose to convert to Islam or keep practicing his faith. But once a person converts to Islam, he should practice his faith and never change it. If he changes it, it is a major sin. Whether it is punishable by Islamic law is a debatable matter among Muslim scholars. Some believe he should be punished because they count this crime as betrayal, while others say that if someone changes his faith and does not challenge the Islamic society, they consider it a private matter between him and Allah and it is not punishable by the Islamic faith according to their view. However, both opinions agree that it is a sin punishable by Allah and that it is the worst form of sin."
Really? This is the worst sin these people can imagine? Are they really that sick?
Would you really want to live surrounded by people (with some kind of power) that share this kind of thinking?