tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post5712136091750560958..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: The case of the sixth islanderStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger77125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-77754608079021611512010-01-13T09:17:34.598+00:002010-01-13T09:17:34.598+00:00Anonymous - yes of course. Which makes the situati...Anonymous - yes of course. Which makes the situation even worse re the Jesus testimony. It's even less credible. Perhaps that's what you mean?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-44393005143550527682010-01-13T03:56:07.995+00:002010-01-13T03:56:07.995+00:00This anology falls aparts because in it you are sp...This anology falls aparts because in it you are speaking directly to people who are still alive and can be identified. This is completely different from a situation where unknown anonymous long dead persons are the only witnesses.<br /><br />Sorry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-67172506899082025442009-07-08T06:45:42.089+00:002009-07-08T06:45:42.089+00:00Speaking of mysterious islanders, this might be a ...Speaking of mysterious islanders, this might be a distraction, but it touches on some of the same questions.<br /><br />Fifteen years ago I was living in Indonesia, and traveled with friends to an island called Flores, just past Komodo. It's basically a volcanic ridge, with lots of remote grassy uplands. We were on the backpacking trail, but speaking in Indonesian to locals, they said that there were still villages up there that hadn't really been touched by modern life. We joked about cannibals.<br /><br />The older ones then explained how, in their grandparents' generation, there used to be little dwarf people on the island. Not humans. They hadn't bothered anyone very often, but now and again they had raided villages, with stories of them trying to take babies, maybe for food. They hadn't been seen now for around a hundred years.<br /><br />I was fascinated by this myth, but it didn't seem to fulfill most of the cultural needs that myths do. They were matter-of-fact about it. There was no supernatural element to it. They weren't claiming that these creatures still existed - no-one in living memory had seen one. They joked that they sometimes now used stories of the dwarf people stealing babies to frighten the kids into behaving. They thought the "little brothers and sisters" had died out, and were sad about that.<br /><br />So, without any empirical evidence and nothing but oral history to go on, these people firmly believed in the recent existence of a species of dwarf humans on Flores.<br /><br />Ten years later, of course, archaeologists turned up remains of the Flores "hobbit", a three-foot humanoid, dated to as recent as 13,000 years old - contemporaneous with modern humans.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_floresiensis<br /><br />Debate rages on about whether this find really is a new species or just a human with a genetic deformity.<br /><br />But what does this do for the islanders' stories of their little brothers and sisters?<br /><br />Of course, it's impossible that the hobbits, if they really existed, lived up until modern times. The stories must be a coincidence, or at best, a gross exaggeration and distortion of ancient sightings. Right?<br /><br />What's really going on here? Why don't we believe these people?ignatznoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-6470479756405114382009-06-29T10:52:36.109+00:002009-06-29T10:52:36.109+00:00In one sense - the 'rational scientific' s...In one sense - the 'rational scientific' sense - I guess there isn't much difference at all between the (Christian) theist and the atheist who nonetheless finds themself amazed 'that there is anything at all'. Perhaps just that the Christian theist who sees the universe itself as a miracle may be rather more open to the possibility of 'miracle' than the 'rational scientist' who has ruled miracles out.<br /><br />But I don't think the difference is just semantic or trivial, because for me it's about the starting 'platform' for all human thinking : the departure platform on which all other thinking and response to the universe sits.<br /><br />I've just joined the Green Party, and my reason for doing so is that I believe we are entering an era when the ground platform for all political science can no longer be e.g. class analysis or rational liberal democracy. Those things may be necessary too, but the basic platform needs to be the relationship between a (humanly-speaking, morally neutral) planet and the human race. I have lost the hope that anthropocentric thinking will save us. "Those who would save their life will lose it", I suppose. But as a Christian theist, I'm always wanting to push the thinking back even beyond the planet, even the physical universe : it's a matter of always reaching for a better perspective.<br /><br />The practical, spiritual, behavioural difference is that I want to give my life to God and serve God, who is 'why anything exists' in the first place. The fact that this God is so utterly transcendent (I have a Calvinist background!) as to 'not exist' creates problems inasmuch as humans find it hard to resist the urge to 'put God in a box' of religion, and reduce God to a god - the superstitious nonsense that Richard Dawkins rightly criticises. But on the other hand, Christianity and Judaism contain within them such a powerful sense of the corruptibility of religions and deep scepticism about the gods (that resistance to idolatry) that sooner or later they continually reinvent themselves : as Jesus said, new wineskins are found for the new wine (which bursts the old wineskins). How it is that Christians worship an utterly transcendent God in an utterly contingent human being (Jesus) will have to wait for some other time! (But certainly Jesus's obscurity doesn't present a problem - rather, a necessary reminder to Christians not to put Jesus in a box too readily either!)<br /><br />You're not entirely wrong to say the difference is semantic. But a word of caution here : the whole language of Christian theism is a vast interlocking symbolic language field that holds in one 'language' questions of transcendence, immanence, ethics, spirituality, rational thought ('wisdom') etc. etc. Rational scientific language has to restrict itself to what can be physically measured; that's its power, but also its weakness : in spiritual and aesthetic terms it's very arid. To one, like me, who inhabits a religious thought-world, much of the discussion I find on blogsites feels arid and rather pointless, sometimes negative and cynical, lacking in hope.<br /><br />So although the difference may be semantic, in the end it is absolutely not trivial for the human race.Dickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14771751470931908022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-21233773660601414432009-06-29T08:23:36.049+00:002009-06-29T08:23:36.049+00:00Dick you said: "God is a word for the creativ...Dick you said: "God is a word for the creative, non-existent nothingness that was in the beginning and that still holds all things in existence. God, by and large, makes no difference to anything. God is why there is anything in the first place."<br /><br />In which case your view is indistinguishable from that of most atheists. See:<br /><br />http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/03/problem-of-evil-mystery-move.html<br /><br />As I said in that post:<br /><br />But now here's my question: what is the difference between the atheist who admits there is indeed a fascinating mystery about why there is anything at all, a mystery to which they do not have the answer, and Vernon's theist who says there's a mystery about why there is anything at all, and calls this mystery "God"?<br /><br />Surely the difference is entirely trivial and semantic?Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82783071643674734892009-06-27T22:40:41.134+00:002009-06-27T22:40:41.134+00:00hard drive failure cut me out of the loop for a fe...hard drive failure cut me out of the loop for a few days . . .<br /><br />Those who took me for a post-modernist way back in the comments got me wrong : that's certainly *not* where I'm at. I am clear that 'meaning clusters' around Jesus to such an extent that the figure of Jesus offers the only possibility, not of some propositional truth based on theoretical arguments about whether he existed or not, or walked on water or not (which cannot be rationally proved), but the only possibility of 'eternal life' - that is, life freed of the dread of nothingness and a deep sense of 'grace'. As a Christian, I have no idea whether when I die I go to a life of eternal bliss. I have no idea whether Jesus "actually" walked on water, or was raised from the dead. 'Belief' is not a tick against a propositional scientific statement. It seems incredibly unlikely - but the fundamental miracle is that there is anything at all. That anything exists from nothing is so awe-inspiring that walking on water and raising the dead seems small beer.<br /><br />God is a word for the creative, non-existent nothingness that was in the beginning and that still holds all things in existence. God, by and large, makes no difference to anything. God is why there is anything in the first place.<br /><br />The funny thing is that when people trust God, give their lives to Jesus, pray &c, improbable things happen. Not 2000 years ago - now. Remarkable healing and transformation happens all the time in quite a lot of Christian communities in Britain. Many Christians would be quite bemused by the idea that miracles didn't happen 2000 years ago : they experience them *now*. That's what I meant when I said "that's not how the world works". I wasn't proposing a single rational theory to contradict other theories - I was referring to the experiences people have.<br /><br />You can explain them away, but for me (as Marx said) 'the point is not to explain it but to change it'. There's enough humanly-created poverty and misery in the world not to reject out of hand seemingly irrational experiences which bring hope, healing, reconciliation, justice, peace &c to millions. Instead of trying to prove miracles don't happen, let's try to get a few happening.Dickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14771751470931908022noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-52234365154283256912009-06-19T18:35:04.255+00:002009-06-19T18:35:04.255+00:00"That is, that not every regularity justifies..."That is, that not every regularity justifies the inductive inference."<br /><br />Yes, of course. But that doesn't mean we don't have a prima facie plausible principle. We do.<br /><br />So now you are at least trying to explain why the Jesus case is an exception to the principle. That's step in right direction, I think, rather than just insisting it's not prima facie plausible.<br /><br />But now notice that I am attacking a specific target - that there is historical evidence (many would say, even just in the NT docs) sufficient to place the existence of/miracles of Jesus beyond reasonable doubt.<br /><br />To say - "Ah, well, we are justified in believing in the existence/miracles of Jesus solely on the basis of this historical testimony, because Jesus is God, and because God says so in this book" is actually to supplement the historical evidence with a number of (ridiculous) assumptions. Including, crucially, the assumption that Jesus exists. You are now just *presupposing* Jesus exists.<br /><br />Presuppose that if you like. But then don't pretend, as so many historians do, that his existence has been established solely on the basis of the historical evidence. That, remember, is the issue we are discussing.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-78808998414164291102009-06-19T17:19:55.350+00:002009-06-19T17:19:55.350+00:00Kyle - this boils down to you raising the skeptica...<i>Kyle - this boils down to you raising the skeptical problem of induction.</i><br /><br />I'm not employing scepticism here. I'm employing the lessons learned from the new riddle of induction. That is, that not every regularity justifies the inductive inference.<br /><br />Here are some reasons why I take Jesus case a bit differently:<br /><br />1. Jesus is God, so it is easier to believe that he can walk on water<br />2. It is reported in a book that I believe to be inspired by God<br /><br />I am also inclined not to believe other claims about people walking on water because I believe that was a one off event.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-34516241931233554362009-06-19T08:11:59.590+00:002009-06-19T08:11:59.590+00:00Kyle - this boils down to you raising the skeptica...Kyle - this boils down to you raising the skeptical problem of induction. This is a version of going nuclear:<br /><br />http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2007/12/letter-to-ibrahim-nuclear-option.html<br /><br />You use induction constantly - indeed trust your life to it. Except when someone gives you an argument to a conclusion you don't want to accept when you pull out the new riddle of induction!<br /><br />My argument is against those who claim that the existence of Jesus is established beyond reasonable doubt by the historical evidence, and in particular, the NT docs.<br /><br />As I said in the post, my aim is not to "prove" we should be sceptical using the argument of which P1 is a premise, but to use the argument as a challenge - if the argument is valid (it is) and based on prima facie plausible premises, then those who think Jesus' existence is established beyond reasonable doubt need to refute it.<br /><br />So, for the above purpose, P1 only needs to be shown to be plausible.<br /><br />Your comment about not knowing about many actual cases of people walking on water is irrelevant, as an evidential principle applies to not just real cases but possible ones too, and can be tested against hypothetical scenarios. In every *possible* scenario I can envisage, we do not take someone's word for it that they know someone who can walk on water. P1 does not just fit actual cases, but any *possible* case I can think of. Or anyone else can think of, so far. That makes it prima facie plausible.<br /><br />Of course you assert the Jesus case is different, but without providing any explanation or justification as to why the principle does not apply in that case. That is called "special pleading": (from wiki) "Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption."Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-88587710596525167932009-06-19T07:49:28.548+00:002009-06-19T07:49:28.548+00:00I think this discussion has taken a few turns that...I think this discussion has taken a few turns that are obscuring some things.<br /><br />Firstly, we are talking about cases of people claiming that someone has walked on water. I'm not sure that I'm aware of many cases outside the Bible, or derived from the Bible. From the way you describe it, it sounds like its a regular occurrence for you.<br /><br />But despite questions about how much evidence there is for rules like "claims about people walking on water require evidence", it is doubtful that enumerative induction is an acceptable method. Goodman has talk that not every property is projectible, and I imagine it would be easy to come up with wacky examples if we permit properties like "being a claim about X".<br /><br />So, I think it is preferable to discuss P1, rather than narrowing the field.<br /><br />Also, you have claimed that I evaluate using the rule in most cases. That is simply not true. There is a difference between using a rule to evaluate a claim, and evaluating in a way consistent with the claim.<br /><br />If someone tells me that they have walked on water, and I ask for evidence, then I am evaluating in a way consistent with the rule, but I'm also evaluating in a way consistent with the following rule:<br /><br />Always ask for evidence on a Friday.<br /><br />Also, I'm not clear what you are claiming the status of your rule is? You say that it is not proved, but plausible. This sounds like a rule of thumb, something helpful. If that is it, then I agree with you. But you need something stronger for your argument.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-45909303180871896372009-06-18T13:21:27.389+00:002009-06-18T13:21:27.389+00:00Hi Giford
you say: "I don't think it all...Hi Giford<br /><br />you say: "I don't think it allows us to confidently claim he didn't exist. "<br /><br />yes I agree - we can't tell either way. we should be skeptical either way.<br /><br />nb to be skeptical re X is not necessarily to say X is not true - just that one is not yet convinced it is.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-60781730612144967392009-06-18T13:11:56.272+00:002009-06-18T13:11:56.272+00:00'lo all, scuse a late comment please.
I'...'lo all, scuse a late comment please. <br /><br />I'm not sold on the idea that we would have sufficient reason to strongly conclude that there was a sixth islander here. <br /><br />It seems that our options are: <br /><br />1) There was no sixth islander; the whole thing is a lie/delusion. <br /><br />2) There was a sixth islander, but the five islanders are lying/mistaken. <br /><br />Either scenario could give the result observed, both seem roughly equally plausible (if anything, I would say the second is more likely). Whilst this certainly casts doubt on the existence of a Sixth Islander / Jesus, I don't think it allows us to confidently claim he didn't exist. <br /><br />As another island-related analogy - most people would say it is 'unclear' whether John Frum existed, despite his connection to implausible claims: <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum<br /><br />GifGifordnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-64614139841426222742009-06-17T20:25:32.251+00:002009-06-17T20:25:32.251+00:00"You are arguing in a circle here. You are us..."You are arguing in a circle here. You are using examples of rational acceptance of testimony to prove a general rule, then using that rule to decide what counts as a rational acceptance of testimony."<br /><br />Bit of straw man here Kyle. I don't claim to "prove" a rule. I say a certain rule is prima facie plausible. My way of showing this is to show that it fits our actual way of assessing testimony. Including your way of assessing testimony - until, crucially, we get to the Jesus case. I went through various examples in which it fits. You have failed to come up with a single counter-example. So, the case for prima facie plausibility has been made.<br /><br />You say:<br /><br />"Either you need to produce a difference proof of your rule, or show that the Jesus case is not rational without relying on the rule"<br /><br />Again, I don't offer "proof" of the principle, rather I suggest the principle or rule is prima facie plausible. Which it is, because as I say it fits with how we (including you) do assess testimony. When someone says "I know someone who can walk on water" neither you nor I take a person's word for it, whether dealing with friends, relatives, scientists, mystics, moderns, ancients, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. until we get to the claim made about Jesus when suddenly you so "Oh, except here! Now it's good enough just to take their word for it!"<br /><br />Yeh, right. The suggestion that as a rule we don't just take someone's word for it that they know someone who walks on water, clearly isn't prima facie plausible at all. What was I thinking...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-75531377064661153072009-06-17T18:58:48.396+00:002009-06-17T18:58:48.396+00:00That was to you Stephen.That was to you Stephen.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55340330476230415402009-06-17T18:51:04.680+00:002009-06-17T18:51:04.680+00:00Kyle - are you responding to me or Steven C? If me...Kyle - are you responding to me or Steven C? If me, your response is off target and can explain why...Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-76072718077622874492009-06-17T18:40:57.782+00:002009-06-17T18:40:57.782+00:00Plantinga has taught us that there is no logical c...<i>Plantinga has taught us that there is no logical contradiction between the two statements<br />1) All swans are white<br />2) I can see with my eyes a black swan.</i><br /><br />Where did he teach that? There is no possible world in which 1 and 2 are both true. If your eyes are deceiving you, then 2 is false.<br /><br /><i>you can't identify what it about the Jesus case that makes it an exception to the rule.</i><br /><br />So what?<br /><br />Plenty of people can't explain why they accept one testimony over another in plenty of cases.<br /><br />Also, few people can identify any relevant difference between between the two moral examples, but that doesn't place any burden on them.<br /><br />You are arguing in a circle here. You are using examples of rational acceptance of testimony to prove a general rule, then using that rule to decide what counts as a rational acceptance of testimony.<br /><br />Either you need to produce a difference proof of your rule, or show that the Jesus case is not rational without relying on the rule.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-87404930761194462882009-06-17T09:49:57.727+00:002009-06-17T09:49:57.727+00:00Hi Kyle. It is enumerative induction, yes. And the...Hi Kyle. It is enumerative induction, yes. And there is nothing wrong with that, of course. <br /><br />The claim: I know someone who walked on water, when considered in every other case I (and, so far, you) can think of, is not accepted on testimony alone (not withstanding the fact that, as you say, content alone is not the only thing relevant to the reliability of testimony).<br /><br />The onus is on you to show that when it is said about Jesus, this is an exception to the rule.<br /><br />Saying "but it just is" is not enough - identify what is different about the Jesus case.<br /><br />The analogy with the black swan case fails, because we can be shown the blackness of the swan, you can't identify what it about the Jesus case that makes it an exception to the rule. Indeed, the only people who think it is an exception are Christians (and not even all of them, notice). This suggests that your intuitions are being distorted by your faith, doesn't it?<br /><br />I suggest prima face, P1 is true. Your judgements and mine are in line with it in all cases considered so far, until we get to the Jesus case, when suddenly you say "Hold on I think this is an exception", yet cannot say why.<br /><br />Imagine a wacko saying, Oh yes, the claim "I know someone who can walk on water" is not something I would accept on someone's say so, except when Jack, leader of my cult, says it. That's an exception to the rule. "Why?" Er. I can't say. But so what? The onus is on you to prove it ISN'T an exception! Ha!<br /><br />I suggest this person would clearly be very seriously deluded. Their mind is being warped by their adherence to the cult.<br /><br />Has it ever occurred to you that yours might be? For this is exactly what you are saying.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-10749585732821878172009-06-17T07:06:44.733+00:002009-06-17T07:06:44.733+00:00KYLE
It is like gathering lots of instances of whi...KYLE<br />It is like gathering lots of instances of white swans to prove that 'All swans are white', and then claiming that an apparent case of a black swan cannot really be a swan because that would violate the rule.<br /><br />CARR<br />Actually it is Christian apologists like Plantinga who have taught us that we can rationally believe that all swans are white , even if we have seen a black swan.<br /><br />For Plantinga has taught us that there is no logical contradiction between the two statements<br />1) All swans are white<br />2) I can see with my eyes a black swan.<br /><br />We simply posit a logically possible world where my eyes deceive me, and there is suddenly no logical contradiction.<br /><br />Isn't Christian apologetics wonderful!<br /><br /><br />And the Christian 'testimony' to the miracles of Jesus is the sort of <a href="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" rel="nofollow">Lies and Frauds </a> that Christians routinely dismiss out of hand when other religions have tried to palm off lies as facts.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-48274570987736725772009-06-17T05:46:42.829+00:002009-06-17T05:46:42.829+00:00If the Jesus case is the exception to the general ...<i>If the Jesus case is the exception to the general rule, the onus is on you to explain why it is an exception, not on me to explain why it isn't.</i><br /><br />That assumes you have established that there is a general rule.<br /><br />1. Your argument seems to be enumerative induction. You amass lots of examples of the principle holding, then conclude from that that it holds for all cases. However, this simply begs the question against the theist. If the the Jesus case is an exception then you have no argument for your general principle, so you cannot use it against the Jesus case.<br /><br />It is like gathering lots of instances of white swans to prove that 'All swans are white', and then claiming that an apparent case of a black swan cannot really be a swan because that would violate the rule.<br /><br />Perhaps, you can say that all the examples of testimony you can think of support the general rule, but I do not see why that should place any obligation upon the theist.<br /><br />2. Also, there are cases where people rationally believe that two cases are different, even though they cannot say why. For example, most people would say that diverting a trolley cart from the line with 5 people to the one with only one person is morally acceptable, whereas killing someone and harvesting their organs to save five people is not acceptable. These two cases seem analogous yet must of us judge them differently. This seems perfectly rational, even if we are not able to say why they are different.<br /><br />3. Your general rule does not seem very general. A general rule that does not take into account all the relevant information, such as context and who is speaking seems like a poor candidate for being general.<br /><br />When i say that I think there is a difference in the Jesus case to a madman claiming he can walk on water, it is not as if it is obvious that no such difference could be found. After all, testimony is a complex, and at times confusing thing. The content is not the only, nor even the main thing that should be considered in any epistemology of testimony.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28656682332689845672009-06-16T17:20:13.058+00:002009-06-16T17:20:13.058+00:00Hi Kyle, you said:
"You are presenting a ver...Hi Kyle, you said:<br /><br />"You are presenting a very simplistic view of testimony. You seem to be suggesting that one should consider the content of the testimony alone, and decide upon that basis what evidence is required.<br /><br />Testimony involves much more than that, you must consider circumstances and your relationship to the testifier."<br /><br />Not so. I would acknowledge many things need to be taken into account in assessing testimony. But that does not mean that P1 is not justified.<br /><br />Let me put it this way. Consider the claims that:<br /><br />Someone I know can walk on water<br /><br />Someone I know can raise the dead<br /><br />These are claims we do not, as a rule accept on the basis of testimony (unlike many other claims). It matters not whether I make these claims, or a scientist, or a New Age mystic, or a remote tribal person, or someone living in the Elizabethan age, etc etc. Not even if it is someone whose opinion I trust as much as I trust anyone's. I won't just take their word for it. Indeed, I'll remain sceptical for now. And so, I am sure, will you.<br /><br />Until we get to the Jesus testimony, when suddenly, you suppose different standards apply.<br /><br />Indeed, you insist the onus is on me to show that different standards don't apply in the Jesus case.<br /><br />But that's wrong, surely. If the Jesus case is the exception to the general rule, the onus is on you to explain why it is an exception, not on me to explain why it isn't.Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-63022913608223844182009-06-15T16:42:33.683+00:002009-06-15T16:42:33.683+00:00Sorry I haven't been able to reply sooner.
St...Sorry I haven't been able to reply sooner.<br /><br />Stephen,<br /><br />You are presenting a very simplistic view of testimony. You seem to be suggesting that one should consider the content of the testimony alone, and decide upon that basis what evidence is required.<br /><br />Testimony involves much more than that, you must consider circumstances and your relationship to the testifier.<br /><br /><i>Clearly, you won't take my word for it that:<br /><br />my dog walks on water<br />my wife is psychic<br />i have been to Atlantis<br /><br />but you will that:<br /><br />my dog likes biscuits,<br />my wife has brown hair<br />I have been to Wales<br /><br />what is it about the former claims that leads you to raise the evidential bar much much higher than for the former?</i><br /><br />This sounds a bit proof by example. I agree with you that the principle holds in a large number of cases, but you have given no reason to think that it always holds.<br /><br />Also, the principle sounds more like a slogan than a principle. It seems implausible that extraordinary has the same meaning in the case of testimony and in the case of evidence.<br /><br />I'm not trying to say that extraordinary has no meaning, or that I don't have an intuitive grasp of what it means. But it seems like a very vague term, and it is not clear that it plays an epistemic role.<br /><br />You seem to be treating extraordinary like it was a property of reports, so that we can divide up objectively extraordinary and ordinary reports, just like we can divide up reports that occurred this century into one group, and reports that occurred before that into another group.Kylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18051333311927845358noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-28897741717664036352009-06-15T12:53:50.160+00:002009-06-15T12:53:50.160+00:00Andrew (or Dick?) - help me out on this. You sugge...Andrew (or Dick?) - help me out on this. You suggest that:<br /><br />"rather than attempt to establish some sort of authority, whether it be God or rationality, we should be more concerned with what ideas, methods of analysis, ways of thinking etc., make for a better world." <br /><br />You also said:<br /><br />"What I find relevant isn’t whether or not what the people wrote in the bible 2000 years ago is true or untrue by today’s standard, but rather what did they mean by it, how is it relevant to us, and is there something to gain by following in the ways of people such as Christ; withstanding all the miracles."<br /><br />The idea here seems to be: rather than worry about whether certain claims made in the bible are 'true' - as if there were some 'culture-free', universal standard of truth available - we should instead ask whether adopting a world-view based on such claims might make for a better world.<br /><br />(I hope that's a fair statement of the point you and Dick are making, at least so far as it relates specifically to Christian claims?)<br /><br />OK - now, what follows might look facetious, since some of it just seems absurd (to me, anyway). But honestly, I'm just trying to take your argument seriously and suggest something about what the implications seem to be.<br /><br />Are you saying that, in assessing the relevance to us of Christian claims - in making a judgment, that is, about the ways in which a world-view based on those claims might tend to produce a better world - questions like the following are just not relevant:<br /><br />(NB 'true' can here be taken as shorthand for 'true by today's standards', if you like.)<br /><br />* Is it true that Jesus was an incarnation of an all-knowing and perfectly good being, and that his moral teachings therefore have a special authority?<br /><br />* Is it true that people who believe in Jesus will experience eternal bliss after their death, while people who do not will experience eternal suffering?<br /><br />* Is it true that Jesus is still alive, and if called upon will cure anyone who believes in him of any disease? <br /><br />This leaves me baffled. Let's assume we do all want to adopt ways of thinking and acting that tend to make a better world. That's our agreed aim. OK - so, when it comes to public health policy (say), should we give more weight to religiously-inpired testimony and focus our resources on the promotion and delivery of faith healing; or should we listen to the scientists and focus our resources on research and medical treatments? In educating our children, should we be concerned primarily with enabling them to flourish during their brief time on earth, or with ensuring that they do not suffer eternal torment after their deaths?<br /><br />Since, in your view, the truth of claims about eternal life, the power of God to heal etc. is (I think?) just not relevant, on what basis do you think we should make judgments in such cases?Greg Onoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-62828639593329783822009-06-15T08:42:16.952+00:002009-06-15T08:42:16.952+00:00I have slightly lost track of who I have and have ...I have slightly lost track of who I have and have not responded to at this point. There has been a huge amount of smokescreen produced though. Just so we don't lose sight of the issue, it is this:<br /><br />If I tell you my wife has psychic powers and can raise people from the dead, and can walk on water, you certainly won't take my (or even my family's) word for it. Testimony is not nearly good enough to justify you in believing these claims.<br /><br />But then why is Gospel testimony that Jesus did these things good enough to justify you in believing these things?<br /><br />Notice I have not used the words "miracle" extraordinary" etc. to set up this challenge, so don't generate smokescreen by asking for philosophically watertight definitions of these terms, etc.<br /><br />Notice it won't do to say - the Jesus testimony comes from a culture in which belief in such amazing actions was far more widespread - it was part of their culture.<br /><br />That hardly makes the testimony more credible, does it? If anything, it makes it even less credible!Stephen Lawhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-1903947375158724092009-06-15T03:08:34.049+00:002009-06-15T03:08:34.049+00:00Which is it Dick?
See here is pomo's fatal fl...Which is it Dick?<br /><br />See here is pomo's fatal flaw. Dick, I'm going to quote passages from back to back paragraphs that you wrote:<br /><br />"There is a fundamental assumption here that people can detach themselves from all context, then in some "culture-free" intellectual isolation make purely rational judgements about various propositions"<br /><br />and<br /><br />"That is not how the world works."<br /><br />Well, if it is all culturally driven, if there is no objective reality, how do you presume to claim, "That is not how the world works."<br /><br />You obviously can't know how the world works (by your own epistemology), so what gives you the warrant to state that some line of reasoning is NOT, "how the world works."<br /><br />It's like the ancient argument for rationality. If you argue against rationality, you must do that from a point of being irrational. If you're being irrational, why argue at all?M. Tullyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06056410184615941086noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-19902208634961752832009-06-15T00:19:08.279+00:002009-06-15T00:19:08.279+00:00Stephen,
Relative to Dicks point (and the nuclear ...Stephen,<br />Relative to Dicks point (and the nuclear argument):<br /><br />If one would agree that there is ultimately no non-circular logical argument with which to appeal to for justification of a certain world view, than certainly Dick is spot on when he suggests, “More important is whether reality coheres around any particular cluster-points of meaning which are more worthy of shaping our lives around than others, because they make for a better world.”<br /><br />He seems to also be pointing to another phenomenon of (let’s call it realist thinking), which tends to consider rational inquiry (or scientific inquiry) as a method of finding out more and more about the same objects – which I tend to consider one of the dogmas of realism. <br /><br />We may be tempted to consider the following statements about Aristotle relative to Newton and/or current physics; “Aristotle said mostly false things about motion”, or “Aristotle said mostly true things about what HE called motion, but we don’t believe there is any such thing.” Or we might want to say, “Here Aristotle goofed, even in his own terms.” Or, “here we have a statement which would be true if anything in Aristotelian physics were, but which, alas, refers to something which does not exist and thus is false.” What we’re trying to accomplish here is to distinguish between Aristotelian falsehoods which are the result of the nonexistence of what he was talking about, and those which result from his misuse of his own theoretical apparatus (the same goes for the islanders, and the same goes for the apostles). However in both cases we’re making a judgment of a particular system of thought relative to the dogma of another system of thought (or as Dick stated, “There is a fundamental assumption here that people can detach themselves from all context….) – on the one hand, assuming we’re talking about the same things, he completely misconstrued and/or misrepresented the nature of motion. On the other hand, he was talking about ghosts and fairies that we can’t seem connect with any phenomenon by today’s standards. In both cases we neglect whatever practical purpose his dialogue about motion served at the time and instead substitute it with the practical purposes we have today – thus it is by those standards we make a call.<br /><br />This get’s back to Dick’s point, rather than attempt to establish some sort of authority, whether it be God or rationality, we should be more concerned with what ideas, methods of analysis, ways of thinking etc., make for a better world. <br /><br />I would tend to agree with you that the Palestinians, having viewed a man walking on water, would have thought it extraordinary. But whether or not they would have found this extraordinary is irrelevant (at least to me). What I find relevant isn’t whether or not what the people wrote in the bible 2000 years ago is true or untrue by today’s standard, but rather what did they mean by it, how is it relevant to us, and is there something to gain by following in the ways of people such as Christ; withstanding all the miracles.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.com