tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post4070633879669828765..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Atheists praise The Truth Behind New Atheism!Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-2758078289828602952013-05-15T06:48:50.302-07:002013-05-15T06:48:50.302-07:00Brian may also be thinking of the Belt of Truth (E...Brian may also be thinking of the Belt of Truth (Ephesians 6:14).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934365167621451886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-71467926201707254692013-05-15T06:15:26.598-07:002013-05-15T06:15:26.598-07:00Also known as the armour of Christ.Also known as the armour of Christ.Billy Squibshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04179984225172253248noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-4325523515911125232013-05-15T01:49:37.099-07:002013-05-15T01:49:37.099-07:00Steve, I have long hoped to persuade David to find...Steve, I have long hoped to persuade David to find his inner humanist, but the atheist within him is protected by so many impenetrable layers of thick religious armour that I sometimes despair of ever getting through to him :-)Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-49255370043775448462013-05-14T14:01:50.141-07:002013-05-14T14:01:50.141-07:00One more thing about Brian’s dismissive attitude t...One more thing about Brian’s dismissive attitude towards “anecdotes.” <br /><br />i) Anecdotes can be unreliable if we try to extrapolate from a few isolated anecdotes to a general claim. <br /><br />ii) On the other hand, if many observers report seeing, say, ball lightning, then it would be irrational to discount their testimony merely because it was anecdotal.<br /><br />iii) Finally, while it may be unreliable to extrapolate from anecdotes to a general claim, there’s nothing inherently suspect about anecdotal reports of particular events. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-50156307832046448942013-05-14T13:46:30.336-07:002013-05-14T13:46:30.336-07:00My ambition is to change Brian's thinking, eve...My ambition is to change Brian's thinking, eventually. But I admit it's an uphill slog. : -)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12934365167621451886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-91536212136575551332013-05-14T12:07:08.914-07:002013-05-14T12:07:08.914-07:00Brian Barrington said...
“The only reason I menti...Brian Barrington said...<br /><br />“The only reason I mention Marian miracles is because I personally know honest, intelligent, sane people who claim to have witnessed them - in some cases simultaneously, meaning there were multiple witnesses to these post-mortem appearances of the Virgin Mary. Indeed, Marian appearances are so frequent and occur in so many places that I reckon one would have to be a real "hyper-sceptic" to hold that the vast array of testimony we have in relation to this matter is all incorrect.”<br /><br />Since I linked to my detailed approach to Catholic miracles, your example is moot. A constant problem with our exchange is that you repeat your rote responses, which are always one step (or more) behind the actual state of the argument.<br /><br />“I'm not asking you to disprove anything - I'm just saying that if something like the coin-in-fish event actually occurred (a big ‘if’) then the most likely natural explanation I can think of is that someone put the coin in the fish after it was caught. If someone draws my attention to a more likely natural explanation then I will change my views on the matter.”<br /><br />I was never my ambition to change your views. That’s not my responsibility. I can’t reason with unreasonable interlocutors. But I can show how unreasonable they are.stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-12811110771787301722013-05-14T11:04:24.890-07:002013-05-14T11:04:24.890-07:00The only reason I mention Marian miracles is becau...The only reason I mention Marian miracles is because I personally know honest, intelligent, sane people who claim to have witnessed them - in some cases simultaneously, meaning there were multiple witnesses to these post-mortem appearances of the Virgin Mary.<br /><br />Indeed, Marian appearances are so frequent and occur in so many places that I reckon one would have to be a real "hyper-sceptic" to hold that the vast array of testimony we have in relation to this matter is all incorrect.<br /><br />I'm not asking you to disprove anything - I'm just saying that if something like the coin-in-fish event actually occurred (a big "if") then the most likely natural explanation I can think of is that someone put the coin in the fish after it was caught. If someone draws my attention to a more likely natural explanation then I will change my views on the matter.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-36274262742390881462013-05-14T11:02:37.130-07:002013-05-14T11:02:37.130-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-29904260232675734712013-05-14T08:49:55.865-07:002013-05-14T08:49:55.865-07:00Brian Barrington said...
“Steve, there are probab...Brian Barrington said...<br /><br />“Steve, there are probably thousands of miracle-claims made every year. Do you believe all or most of these miracles occured because it would be hypersceptical to regard the testimony as incorrect? Let's take the last 10,000 miracle-claims/supernatural claims made by humans over the last while - claims of moving statues, statues crying milk, apparitions of the Virgin Mary, visits from dead relatives, levitation, predictive feats inexplicable by natural means, mind-reading feats inexplicable by natural means etc. - unless you are prepared to say that you believe all or most of this testimony is correct then that makes you a hypersceptic with regards to human testimony. But I bet you don’t just accept that these miracles all happened just because someone says they witnessed them happening – you are sceptical about the testimony, and rightly so.”<br /><br />i) That’s grossly simplistic. There are standard criteria for sifting testimonial evidence, viz. C. A. J. Coady, Testimony: A Philosophical Study.<br /><br />ii) Why do you bring up Marian miracles when my first comment on this thread was to link to lengthy analysis of Fatima? <br /><br />iii) Likewise, I frequently evaluate the paranormal, viz. <br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/04/pauli-effect.html<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/02/bell-book-candle.html<br /><br />“Regarding the coin-in-the-fish, I'm saying that if something like the event occured (a very big “if”, admittedly) and if there is a natural explanation, then most likely someone put the coin in the fish after it was caught. This is obvious and unless you can come up with a natural explanation that is more likely, I'll take it you agree that this is the most likely natural explanation, if we assume that something like the event occured.”<br /><br />Since there is zero evidence for your alternative explanation, the onus is not on me to disprove a claim for which you have no evidence. A claim, moreover, that runs counter to the available evidence. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-86043467876308767402013-05-14T01:55:00.907-07:002013-05-14T01:55:00.907-07:00Steve, there are probably thousands of miracle-cla...Steve, there are probably thousands of miracle-claims made every year. Do you believe all or most of these miracles occured because it would be hypersceptical to regard the testimony as incorrect? Let's take the last 10,000 miracle-claims/supernatural claims made by humans over the last while - claims of moving statues, statues crying milk, apparitions of the Virgin Mary, visits from dead relatives, levitation, predictive feats inexplicable by natural means, mind-reading feats inexplicable by natural means etc. - unless you are prepared to say that you believe all or most of this testimony is correct then that makes you a hypersceptic with regards to human testimony. But I bet you don’t just accept that these miracles all happened just because someone says they witnessed them happening – you are sceptical about the testimony, and rightly so.<br /><br />Regarding the coin-in-the-fish, I'm saying that if something like the event occured (a very big “if”, admittedly) and if there is a natural explanation, then most likely someone put the coin in the fish after it was caught. This is obvious and unless you can come up with a natural explanation that is more likely, I'll take it you agree that this is the most likely natural explanation, if we assume that something like the event occured.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-44930422575654347762013-05-13T11:44:08.372-07:002013-05-13T11:44:08.372-07:00Brian Barrington said...
“If the coin-in-the-mout...Brian Barrington said...<br /><br />“If the coin-in-the-mouth incident occurred and was not a miracle but a natural event, then most likely the coin was somehow slipped into the mouth of the fish by a human AFTER the fish was caught.”<br /><br />i) You’re concocting a backstory for which there’s no evidence. <br /><br />ii) If you think it was a magic trick, then who would be the magician? Logically, that would have to be Jesus, for Jesus is the one who made the prediction. Jesus would be the beneficiary of a successful prediction. <br /><br />But according to the account, Jesus didn’t catch the fish. He wasn’t there when the fish was caught. Peter caught the fish. <br /><br />Therefore, your explanation isn’t consistent with the internals of the account, even if the account were fictitious.<br /><br />“But another strong possibility is that nothing of the sort occurred in the first place – that the anecdote related just didn’t happen…Well, that is not what I am saying – everyone agrees that the evidence we have for the coin-in-the-mouth story is the testimony or the anecdote. So what are the possible explanations for the existence of the testimony or anecdote? The first possibility is that the testimony is incorrect – that the events related in the anecdote did not happen.”<br /><br />That’s only plausible if we grant your hyperskepticism regarding anecdotal/testimonial evidence. I don’t share your hyperskepticism.<br /><br />For instance, I remember lots of things that happened when I was in junior high or high school. You may call that “anecdotal,” but so what? The fact that it’s anecdotal doesn’t make it unreliable. Do you systematically doubt your own memories? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-51574489277000755552013-05-13T08:25:07.913-07:002013-05-13T08:25:07.913-07:00I am agreeing with you that if the event occurred ...I am agreeing with you that if the event occurred and was the result of specific supernatural planning or supernatural intervention by a supernatural being, then it was a miracle – so I don’t think we really have any disagreement over what constitutes a miracle. If the coin-in-the-mouth incident occurred and was not a miracle but a natural event, then most likely the coin was somehow slipped into the mouth of the fish by a human AFTER the fish was caught. But another strong possibility is that nothing of the sort occurred in the first place – that the anecdote related just didn’t happen.<br /><br />“To say testimonial evidence is the source of our information hardly counts as an alternative explanation to the miraculous explanation.” Well, that is not what I am saying – everyone agrees that the evidence we have for the coin-in-the-mouth story is the testimony or the anecdote. So what are the possible explanations for the existence of the testimony or anecdote? The first possibility is that the testimony is incorrect – that the events related in the anecdote did not happen. The second possibility is that the testimony\anecdote is correct and that there is a natural explanation for the event. The third possibility is that the testimony\anecdote is correct and that there is a supernatural explanation for the event – in which case it would be a miracle. Again, I don’t think there is any disagreement between us here.<br /><br />“If it exceeds human abilities, then it’s superhuman.” Again, we may be in basic agreement here – if an event occurs that cannot be explained by natural causes (either caused by humans or by other natural beings) then the cause must have been a supernatural being (assuming the event occurred). So that is what a miracle would be – an event caused by the specific planning or intervention of a supernatural being.<br />Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-5321887781310247072013-05-13T02:02:01.713-07:002013-05-13T02:02:01.713-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-32014784448441451292013-05-12T14:48:12.624-07:002013-05-12T14:48:12.624-07:00cont. “Having said that, if it makes some people h...cont. “Having said that, if it makes some people happier to think that it happened and that it was a miracle, then I don't necessarily object to them thinking that - whatever gets you through the day!”<br /><br />Your condescension isn’t justified by the level of your performance. <br /><br />“When you say ‘Some events are too coincidental to be purely coincidental’ it means that the alleged event is so improbable based on what we know concerning physical evidence and the regularities of nature that the event requires supernatural planning or intervention. That is the basis on which the event is deemed to be virtually impossible based on natural causes alone - without that, you have no basis for claiming that the specific event is improbable/impossible without supernatural planning or intervention.”<br /><br />Once more, you’re just repeating yourself. That’s intellectually lazy. As I already pointed out to you, your framework is simplistic. Some events are too coincidental to be purely coincidental because they are the result of personal agency. Take a card sharp. You constantly fail to distinguish between inanimate agencies and personal agency. <br /><br />If an event can’t be plausibly accounted for by inanimate agencies, then we turn to personal agents.<br /><br />The next question is the kind of personal agent required to account for the event. If it exceeds human abilities, then it’s superhuman. <br /><br />“Crossing rivers is a natural event that occurs frequently and requires no supernatural explanation.”<br /><br />I said nothing about crossing rivers, so how is that responsive to my argument? <br /><br />“Turning water instantly into wine would (absent some new technological discovery) seem to require a supernatural explanation. That is why the first is not a miracle, but the second would plausibly be regarded as miracle if it occurred.”<br /><br />Once again, you’ve come back full circle to your original paradigm, having failed to acquire a more sophisticated grasp of the issues, despite my examples and explanations.<br /><br />I don’t know what your problem is. Are you just frivolous? Do you lack the mental concentration to keep track of the argument?<br /><br />You need to put your flash cards down and start to actually think through the issues. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-1410797135330165712013-05-12T14:47:32.909-07:002013-05-12T14:47:32.909-07:00Brian Barrington said...
“Steve, apologies for de...Brian Barrington said...<br /><br />“Steve, apologies for delay in getting back. Regarding the coin in the fish - one possibility is that it did not happen.”<br /><br />You’re repeating the same mistake you made before, which I already corrected you on. My argument wasn’t predicated on it actually happening. Rather, I used this as an example of a type of miracle that doesn’t conform to your artificial definition.<br /><br />I think it happened, by that wasn’t the point of the argument.<br /><br />Is there same reason you mechanically repeat the same formulaic responses rather than adapting to the actual state of the argument? <br /><br />“A second possibility is that it (or something like it) happened and that it was an entirely natural event - most likely some sort of magic trick, or else a natural coincidence… Second most likely (but considerably less likely) is that it or something like it happened and it was a completely natural event (e.g. a magic trick).”<br /><br />Have you made a serious effort to consider what that would entail?<br /><br />a) A fish swallows a coin.<br />b) The fish swallowed the coin no later than when Peter went fishing.<br />c) The fish swallowing the coin no earlier than the lifespan of the fish.<br />d) Within the same narrow timeframe, Peter was talking with Jesus about the temple tax.<br />e) The coin inside the fish was the exact amount required to pay the tax for two persons: Jesus and Peter.<br />d) Jesus predicted that if Peter went fishing, he would catch the fish with the coin.<br />e) Peter went fishing at the exact time the fish was swimming by.<br />f) Peter went fishing at the exact place the fish was swimming by.<br />g) Peter successfully caught the fish.<br /><br />Now, considered hypothetically, what are the odds that all those independent variables would converge? Why do you think that’s more likely than a supernatural explanation? <br /><br />In what sense would it be a magic trick? Are you suggesting Jesus caught a fish, put a coin in the fish, then told Peter to go fishing, while Jesus trained the fish to swim by at just the right time and place for Peter to catch it?<br /><br />“Another possibility is that it was a miracle due to supernatural intervention or supernatural planning.<br />Looking at the evidence (a couple of sentences in a single book) and judging what is most likely based on the testimonial evidence or anecdotal evidence, by far the most likely thing is that it didn't happen… Way, way, way behind either of these possibilities is the possibility that it happened and was a miracle.”<br /><br />i) To begin with, that’s a false dichotomy. To say testimonial evidence is the source of our information hardly counts as an alternative explanation to the miraculous explanation. You’re confusing a miracle with how we know about a miracle. <br /><br />ii) And, once again, you’re just repeating your claim about the alleged improbability of miracles, in the teeth of my counterargument. Why is that? If you raise an objection, and I present a counterargument, it’s incumbent on you to take the counterargument into account and either improve on your objection or withdraw your objection. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-15268539103841642342013-05-12T07:32:47.650-07:002013-05-12T07:32:47.650-07:00Brian: But it is possible that aliens with that te...Brian: But it is possible that aliens with that technology arrived on Earth at the time of Jesus, happened to be at that feast, felt sorry for the family, and aided in the transformation. Highly, highly improbable. But so is catching a fish with a coin in it's mouth just when you need to pay taxes, have no money, and Jesus told you to do that in response to a query about taxes. <br /><br />Why is a miracle by God the least likely explanation? Aren't you just being dogmatic? <br /><br />BTW, Happy Mother's Day, everyone, even if you're not a mother. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-69151979489826090082013-05-12T03:36:54.948-07:002013-05-12T03:36:54.948-07:00Steve, apologies for delay in getting back. Regard...Steve, apologies for delay in getting back. Regarding the coin in the fish - one possibility is that it did not happen. A second possibility is that it (or something like it) happened and that it was an entirely natural event - most likely some sort of magic trick, or else a natural coincidence. Another possibility is that it was a miracle due to supernatural intervention or supernatural planning.<br /><br />Looking at the evidence (a couple of sentences in a single book) and judging what is most likely based on the testimonial evidence or anecdotal evidence, by far the most likely thing is that it didn't happen. Second most likely (but considerably less likely) is that it or something like it happened and it was a completely natural event (e.g. a magic trick). Way, way, way behind either of these possibilities is the possibility that it happened and was a miracle.<br /><br />Having said that, if it makes some people happier to think that it happened and that it was a miracle, then I don't necessarily object to them thinking that - whatever gets you through the day!<br /><br />When you say "Some events are too coincidental to be purely coincidental" it means that the alleged event is so improbable based on what we know concerning physical evidence and the regularities of nature that the event requires supernatural planning or intervention. That is the basis on which the event is deemed to be virtually impossible based on natural causes alone - without that, you have no basis for claiming that the specific event is improbable/impossible without supernatural planning or intervention.<br /><br />Crossing rivers is a natural event that occurs frequently and requires no supernatural explanation. Turning water instantly into wine would (absent some new technological discovery) seem to require a supernatural explanation. That is why the first is not a miracle, but the second would plausibly be regarded as miracle if it occurred.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-48303686950343295192013-05-10T13:29:47.696-07:002013-05-10T13:29:47.696-07:00Dr. H: Sorry for the software trouble; more often ...Dr. H: Sorry for the software trouble; more often it discriminates against riff-raff, not solid citizens like yourself. <br /><br />My point is, you disparage the importance of human testimony because you recognize that it has the drop on your worldview -- in my opinion. <br /><br />And yes, you do disparage it, except when you're using it yourself. <br /><br />ALL of science depends on human testimony. Every bit of it. I used to say "most," but I realize now that it is all. <br /><br />How do you know apples fall from trees when their stems break? You heard the story of Sir Isaac Newton as a boy. You told yourself, "Hmmn. Anecdotal evidence. Highly suspicious. Must test for myself Scientifistically (TM)by means of physical evidence."<br /><br />You go into the back yard and climb up your Dad's Yellow Banana apple tree with a stick. Nobody cares: these apples are no good, anyway. You knock half a dozen apples out of the tree. Sure enough, they all fall to the ground, at various angles, depending on how you hit them -- some in pieces, already. <br /><br />Forty years later, you're typing on your computer. "I have physical evidence that apples fall from trees!" <br /><br />Where is it? Stored in a mental locker in your brain. <br /><br />In fact, it's not physical evidence at all. It's a highly fallible memory. <br /><br />Oh, but you wrote up an article for a journal! See! Real, peer-reviewed paper!<br /><br />Only half the peers are dead now, one has alteimers, and the others don't even remember your name. <br /><br />It's just paper. An historical artifact. <br /><br />"Oh, but I can always go and knock down some more apples! Anyone can test my theory!"<br /><br />That's a prediction about the future. While it is happening, it is something you observe with highly fallible eyes and cords going from them into the interpretive centers of your unseen, untouched, unsmelt, brain. After it happens, its visual images stored elsewhere in the same fallible brain, that you retrieve through Lord knows how many unobserved mental circuits. <br /><br />You will never, ever, ever get away from relying on human testimony, including of course your own, for as long as you live. Not for anything. <br /><br />I did not ignore the research you sent, as you ought to remember, if your own highly fallible brain were recalling accurately. I read through a lot of it, and found nothing contradicting my position, or my own experiments testing human memory. I found that under some circumstances, human testimony can be highly reliable. But you know that, since you rely on it constantly, like all the rest of us. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-945787240906314912013-05-10T12:46:34.014-07:002013-05-10T12:46:34.014-07:00(I notice your blog software is still having troub...(I notice your blog software is still having trouble counting to 4096... )<br /><br />A few other points which wouldn't fit in the prior post:<br /><br /><br /><br />As regards the definition of the category "Gospel", I have debated all four of the points David mentions here, but the key, I think, is to be found in his point #2, "... identify qualities shared among a given class, then see if a proposed specimen does or does not share those qualities."<br /><br />The problem is that David has <i>predefined</i> the class in this case, as consisting of only the Canonical Gospels. He extracts his qualities from this predefined class, and only then does he apply them to other alleged members of the class and find them wanting. This is not unlike determining the qualities of "dog" by examining only beagles, basset hounds, and foxhounds, and then concluding that German shepherds, malamutes, and poodles aren't really "dogs" because they don't share enough of the qualities of the predefined class of dogs.<br /><br />Not to mention that this approach sidesteps completely what is probably the most important single quality where selection of the Canon is concerned: it fit the agenda of the Church.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br />As to the possible reasons for "new atheist," yes, there might be many explanations for that, and perhaps some of David's suggestions hit close to the truth. I do, however, stand by my contention that religionists have seized upon the term with relish for precisely the reasons I stated: it provides an easy means of defining a faux "movement", that opposition can more efficiently be mobilized against. It's always easier to rabble-rouse against a group, than it is against a bunch of individual cranks. Religion has, from the beginning, recognized the power implicit in organization.Dr Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12556054257610269618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-46502141042955452752013-05-10T12:43:48.203-07:002013-05-10T12:43:48.203-07:00David kindly gave me a 'heads up' that he ...David kindly gave me a 'heads up' that he would be posting my old Amazon review over in the blog, so I thought I'd drop in and see what was up. Real Life™ is a bit on the hectic side for me just now, so I'm not sure how long I can stick around, but for now, here I am. And of course I'd like to address some of David's comments regarding my review.<br /><br />David says: "First of all, you seem to recognize in effect (though not in so many words) that your atheism may be undermined by admitting the relevance of human testimony."<br /><br />I find this an absolutely fabulous conclusion upon which to leap, as I've not only said no such thing "in so many words", but I've not even implied it, and in fact have explicitly dismissed it elsewhere. <br /><br />I have never failed to admit the relevance of human testimony, I simply insist on assigning it the proper weight. Human testimony -- anecdotal evidence -- is an inherently weak form of evidence, and in no way begins to approach the relevance of physical evidence. It is weak because it <i>always</i> comes with the baggage that it may be: mistaken; fabricated; reflect misinterpretation; the result of delusion; the result of illusion or sensory distortion; incomplete; or deliberately or unconsciously embellished. It cannot be directly examined by another person; physical evidence can. <br /><br />In short, human testimony amounts to hearsay.<br /><br />The truth value of any evidence must be tested by seeing how strongly it correlates with reality. This requires, at some point, and on some level, referencing the real, physical world. Human testimony is hearsay until and unless it can be shown to correlate with something real, and hence the priority of value is accorded to the real (ie. physical) evidence.<br /><br />Given that anecdotal evidence in inherently weak, a lot of people with arguments which hinge on the veracity of such testimony fall into another fallacy, which David has also employed, and which I see reflected in some of the comments here. This is the assumption that, if you have a <b>LOT</b> of testimony, that somehow increases its value as evidence. Not so: having a lot of weak evidence doesn't somehow magically convert it into strong evidence.<br /><br />Majority opinion may sometimes determine the structure of social reality, but it certainly doesn't determine the structure of physical reality. At one time, most people living believed the Earth to be flat and located at the center of the universe. Turns out, they were wrong. <br />In April 1983 several hundred people (and a live television audience of millions) "witnessed" the Statue of Liberty vanish, due to the "magic" of David Copperfield. Turns out the Statue is still there. Thousands of people have "witnessed" Chris Angel and David Blain "levitate".<br /><br />There has been a great deal of research done, much of it in the past 15-20 years, that has revealed the unreliability of eyewitness testimony, and the fallibility of the human memory upon which it relies. As a result of this research the legal machinery in many jurisdictions is in the slow, tedious process of redefining their rules for the admission of such testimony in court. David has, thus far, chosen to pretty much ignore this research; perhaps someday he will attempt to deal with it directly.<br /><br />If my atheism is to be "undermined" it's going to have to be with hard evidence. Human testimony alone isn't even going to scuff the surface.Dr Hhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12556054257610269618noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23264785533252574722013-05-09T16:42:27.499-07:002013-05-09T16:42:27.499-07:00Brian Barrington said...
“If you want to call som...Brian Barrington said...<br /><br />“If you want to call some natural events miracles then I won't quibble over the terminology, although for the sake of clarity it might be useful to still distinguish between miracles that are contrary to physical evidence and natural laws i.e. those caused by direct supernatural intervention (we could call these supernatural miracles)…”<br /><br />To define a miracle as an event that’s “contrary to physical evidence” (whatever that means) or “contrary to natural laws” (whatever that means) is a highly contested definition. For instance:<br /><br />http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/#MirVioLawNat<br /><br />What philosophical literature have you read on miracles?<br /><br />“…and these other miracles that are more like pre-arranged coincidences that could conceivably occur naturally without any pre-arranging by a supernatural entity (we could call these natural miracles).”<br /><br />And the term for that is coincidence miracle. See David Bartholomew’s discussion in Uncertain Belief: Is it Rational to be a Christian? (Oxford 1996), chap. 4.<br /><br />“But in relation to this I would re-emphasise that remarkable coincidences occur all the time in our world, and about as frequently as one would expect, and they do not require any supernatural explanation - in fact, if remarkable coincidences did not occur all the time it would really amount to proof that there is supernatural intervention in our world, since it is to be expected that coincidences should continually occur in the world and it would require supernatural intervention to prevent them happening.”<br /><br />i) Once again, you’re missing the point. You seem to think you can just wing it without bothering to acquaint yourself with the relevant literature. A coincidence miracle has a fairly rigorous definition with highly specified conditions. <br /><br />ii) Some events are too coincidental to be purely coincidental. They reflect a calculated and concerted plan. <br /><br />iii) You need to distinguish between an event which reflects intelligent agency in general, and one which reflects divine agency in particular. Some events require a mastery of detail and magisterial control over the relevant variables that exceeds human intelligence, power, and/or longevity. <br /><br />You yourself find the “coin in the mouth” too convenient to be realistic absent supernatural involvement. And since you’re an atheist, you therefore dismiss it out of hand.<br /><br />“Is history replicable?’ No, so our knowledge of much history is fairly tentative, especially as we go further back.”<br /><br />Which undermines your appeal to natural regularities, inasmuch you depend on testimonial evidence for your appeal to the (alleged) uniformity of nature. <br /><br />“But if a claimed historical event does not contradict any regularity of nature derived from constant and replicable observation of physical reality (e.g. The claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon) then we have less reason to be immediately sceptical about the claim than if the claim DOES contradict any regularity of nature (e.g. a claim that Caesar turned water into wine, or a claim that he rose from the dead and so on).”<br /><br />I’ve already explained to you why your contention is false. You simply blow past the rebuttal rather than presenting a counterargument. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-91400422926920175222013-05-09T15:13:14.888-07:002013-05-09T15:13:14.888-07:00If you want to call some natural events miracles t...If you want to call some natural events miracles then I won't quibble over the terminology, although for the sake of clarity it might be useful to still distinguish between miracles that are contrary to physical evidence and natural laws i.e. those caused by direct supernatural intervention (we could call these supernatural miracles), and these other miracles that are more like pre-arranged coincidences that could conceivably occur naturally without any pre-arranging by a supernatural entity (we could call these natural miracles). But in relation to this I would re-emphasise that remarkable coincidences occur all the time in our world, and about as frequently as one would expect, and they do not require any supernatural explanation - in fact, if remarkable coincidences did not occur all the time it would really amount to proof that there is supernatural intervention in our world, since it is to be expected that coincidences should continually occur in the world and it would require supernatural intervention to prevent them happening.<br /><br />"Is history replicable?" No, so our knowledge of much history is fairly tentative, especially as we go further back. But if a claimed historical event does not contradict any regularity of nature derived from constant and replicable observation of physical reality (e.g. The claim that Caesar crossed the Rubicon) then we have less reason to be immediately sceptical about the claim than if the claim DOES contradict any regularity of nature (e.g. a claim that Caesar turned water into wine, or a claim that he rose from the dead and so on).Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-79184248009176553902013-05-09T13:51:31.674-07:002013-05-09T13:51:31.674-07:00Brian Barrington said...
“Regarding the ‘coin in...Brian Barrington said...<br /><br />“Regarding the ‘coin in the fish’ - if there was some intervention from a supernatural being that caused it then, if it happened, it was a miracle.” <br /><br />i) You have difficulty following your own argument. You were the one who defined a miracle in opposition to natural law. However, the “coin in the fish” doesn’t violate any natural law, yet it can still be supernaturally orchestrated.<br /><br />ii) A miracle doesn’t require divine “intervention.” Prearranging an outcome isn’t equivalent to intervention. “Intervention” suggest things were going a certain way on their own until an agent diverted the natural course of events. If, however, the “coin in the fish” was divinely orchestrated, then events were prepositioned to converge on that outcome from the get-go.<br /><br />“The reason people regard turning water into wine and people rising from the dead etc. as evidence that God exists, or that the supernatural, exists is precisely because these events are contrary to the physical evidence, and to natural laws readily observable to everyone. Without this distinction, I see no grounds for calling one event miraculous and another event non-miraculous. If you don't accept the distinction between what is natural and supernatural, then what are your grounds for calling one event miraculous and another non-miraculous?”<br /><br />To the contrary, a miracle can be miraculous precisely because it is customized to fit an individual need, where only the party concerned discerns the significance of the event. Say a Christian has a very specific need. He prays about it. Out of the blue his need is met is a very specific and unexpected fashion.<br /><br />Only he (or some of his confidants) is in a position to appreciate how timely this is, and how unlikely this would be apart from supernatural provision. <br /><br />Which is not to deny miracles of a more public character, but that’s not a definite feature of a miracle. <br /><br />“The reason why these events are regarded as miracles by religious people is because they are contrary to the physical evidence, whereas, for example, getting up and going to the toilet to urinate is not regarded as a miracle, since it is a natural act that everyone observes regularly, and one that does not contradict any regularity of nature derived from constant and replicable observation of physical reality.”<br /><br />Is history replicable? <br /><br />“You might, I suppose, say that absolutely everything that happens in the world (including genocide, child rape, earthquakes, tsunamis and so on) is a "miraculous" act of God - this seems to be where your line of reasoning is leading you. But if that is the case, then me picking my nose is as miraculous as Jesus rising from the dead.”<br /><br />You’re not paying attention. I said every natural event is directly or indirectly an act of God. Are you defining child rape and genocide as natural events?<br /><br />Likewise, don’t you grasp the distinction between direct and indirect? An indirect act of God would employ a physical medium.<br /><br />You added “miraculous” to “act of God,” as if an act of God is ipso facto miraculous. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-64822358892721609022013-05-09T13:41:36.080-07:002013-05-09T13:41:36.080-07:00Brian: You have to keep in mind that for Christian...Brian: You have to keep in mind that for Christians, the agent working a miracle -- in the sense I defined -- is God. Since God created Nature, the fact that God might work through Nature in no way precludes a given event from providing evidence that God is at work. Again, my definition of miracles above is "an event within the natural world that gives strong and specific evidence that God is at work." That answers your question about my criteria. All you need to do is read more carefully -- you're better than most atheists for that, but I know it takes concentration to really take in new and possibly uncomfortable notions. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-25620044543943666052013-05-09T13:28:50.431-07:002013-05-09T13:28:50.431-07:00Regarding the " coin in the fish" - if t...Regarding the " coin in the fish" - if there was some intervention from a supernatural being that caused it then, if it happened, it was a miracle. If there was no supernatural intervention, then it was a natural event, like any other natural event, and therefore not a miracle.<br /><br />The reason people regard turning water into wine and people rising from the dead etc. as evidence that God exists, or that the supernatural, exists is precisely because these events are contrary to the physical evidence, and to natural laws readily observable to everyone. Without this distinction, I see no grounds for calling one event miraculous and another event non-miraculous. If you don't accept the distinction between what is natural and supernatural, then what are your grounds for calling one event miraculous and another non-miraculous? The reason why these events are regarded as miracles by religious people is because they are contrary to the physical evidence, whereas, for example, getting up and going to the toilet to urinate is not regarded as a miracle, since it is a natural act that everyone observes regularly, and one that does not contradict any regularity of nature derived from constant and replicable observation of physical reality. <br /><br />You might, I suppose, say that absolutely everything that happens in the world (including genocide, child rape, earthquakes, tsunamis and so on) is a "miraculous" act of God - this seems to be where your line of reasoning is leading you. But if that is the case, then me picking my nose is as miraculous as Jesus rising from the dead.Brian Barringtonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11025043345722806768noreply@blogger.com