(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
Considering my own knowledge of Wittgenstein, almost anything I could absorb would be an improvement, but I'm unfortunately not able to participate.
On the other hand, I do suspect that Ibrahim Lawson would benefit greatly from your course as well
:-)
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
My suspicion is based on the observation of your references to Wittgenstein, language and hermeneutics in several occations on this blog, the responses from others (who apparently are fairly well versed in W.'s work) and then your apparent inability to counter their objections in any substantial way.
But my suspicion might of course be wrong. As I allready have indicated, you are probably vastly more erudite on W. than me.
My only recent rendezvous with W. was BTW entirely circumstantial. In his recent "The Grasshooper", Bernard Suits has a wonderful and simple generic definiton of "game": "the voluntary attempt to overcome unnecessary obstacles"
Apparently W. believed that "game" could not be given a general and concice definition.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
anyway, Cassanders, I would appreciate you pointing to an example of my apparent inability to respond to others objections to my interpretation of Wittgenstein, language and hermeneutics etc as i wasn't really aware that anyone had taken me up on any of these issues and may have missed something.
Cheers,
Stephen
Many Thanks,
Stephen
Many Thanks,
Stephen
Nice one Stephen!