I am very irritated by this, and have commented....
(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
Comments
Honestly, this is Deepak Chopra territory.
[face in palms]
Wow. Even writing it made me feel stupid.
Makes me think of this Tim Minchin animation
It's frustrating that she claims to be against rankism (Orwellian term if ever their was one). The promise of "Secret Knowledge" has been used to keep the plebs in check for centuries. Critical thinking is something anyone can try. But secret knowledge... well, that's something you can only get from the right priest, or shaman, or Jedi Master, or for the bargain sum of $269 plus shipping + taxes.
An interesting idea. Another question: when people say things like this, do they really believe what they say? The philosopher David Hume thought that even apparently religious people don't really believe their religion.
And if they don't, how do we explain their apparent denial? Is it
(a) they are mentally ill
(b) they are consciously lying
(c) they are unconsciously lying or 'in denial'
(d) something else.
The philosopher Harry Franfurter has a 'theory of bullshit' according to which the bullshitter is 'indifferent to truth', but I wonder if that's possible. My experience of bullshitters is that they are pretty expert at steering you away from the exact area they are bullshitting you about. This suggests they are conscious of it in some way (and so not indifferent to truth at all).
I would recommend the commenters here (and Stephen also) not to get upset about this. See it as a psychological (or psychiatric) phenomenon worthy of serious study.
Lester's "nuclear comment" probably cannot even be entertained as *possibly true* unless you are willing to engage with the game at a rather high level, and unless you first have some direct personal experience that suggests that higher-order impossibilities might possibly be true.
I can't quite make out her point but she seems to be using Going Nuclear to deny Going Nuclear.
I mean, c'mon starving people, it's your own damn fault, idiots. Also, why are you so stupid that you keep visualizing AIDS and Malaria?
I guess if Lester Levinson can just keep up the happy thoughts, he'll live forever. Which makes me wonder, why does she start the article with "there was once a man named Lester Levinson"? Did he eventually succumb to the dreaded disease called a frowny face?
This is dangerous quackery bullshit. I know people who never quit smoking, as cancer was something that was "easily visualized away".
What trash. Someone PLEASE sue her.
It doesn't worth the effort...
http://lawrence-crane-enterprises.pissedconsumer.com/the-release-technique-avoid-20090731151634.html