Here's a discussion I had last night with some US Christian Apologists, if you're interested. It was quite knock about. They really pushed the C.S. Lewis style moral argument.
(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
These conversations will never change the mind of these apologists because the narrative is their to defend the belief. How they came to their belief if usually quite subjective. I would have like to know more about Cliffe’s personal testimony. They asked you for your background and you were open and honest. I think you had a right to ask them about their testimony at the start.
It is a particular problem of the human mind that it constantly tries to make sense of the world. It does this by adopting narratives of belief that are internally consistent but not necessarily true. Conspiracy theorists, flat earthers , theists all do this. We do it to but we guard against holding false beliefs by using skepticism , critical thinking and science where possible.
As Richard Feynman once said “I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong”.
@myopenmind101
One issue on which you seem to have come under particular attack was the question of where our moral sense comes from if not from God. You said you had no definitive view on that, and why should you? You rightly pointed out that just because we cannot answer questions about the world does not justify conjuring up a deity to 'explain' them. However, although I've never formally studied philosophy, I have for many years been formulating a theory of morality which explains what is right or wrong, good or bad, and why we should do good, in a way which I believe reconciles all the various approaches taken by other moral philosophers without invoking God. If you are interested, I am currently looking for someone to read and possibly appraise my draft book on the subject prior to seeking publication. I would be pleased to send you an electronic copy of you would be happy to do this. I have chosen for follow-up comments to be e-mailed to me so hopefully this would enable you to make contact if you wish. (You may recall that I left you a very favourable view of your book The Philosophy Gym' on Amazon many years ago!).
Well done Stephen. You showed supreme patience and, dare I say, grace in the face of that onslaught. A lot of heat, but some genuine light for those willing to look for it.