tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post4148329505714626790..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: Problems with Ferguson's Presuppositions against MiraclesUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-78125645506487155012017-04-29T12:03:54.991-07:002017-04-29T12:03:54.991-07:00It also doesn't matter to me if Jesus' bod...It also doesn't matter to me if Jesus' body, all things being equal, would have remained dead, had God not intervened. Even if bodies don't normally resurrect on the 3rd day after death, forensic science and medicine could still hypothetically tell us if, in an exceptional circumstance, a particular body had done so. Regularity and what naturally takes place (without the supernatural) is not my concern here. What is my concern is whether there has *ever* been an event of the sort described with Jesus that has been documented by modern science and medicine. If not, I would describe such an event as "paranormal."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086446942367135553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-66779182402428066012017-04-29T11:57:10.390-07:002017-04-29T11:57:10.390-07:00As a note, I would revise the definition from the ...As a note, I would revise the definition from the Parapsychological Association (Glossary):<br /><br />“Any phenomenon that in one or more respects exceeds the limits of what is deemed physically possible according to current scientific assumptions.”<br /><br />To state:<br /><br />“Any phenomenon that in one or more respects has not been documented by current scientific observation."<br /><br />I think the words "possible" and "assumption" are problematic, since I am not trying to say what would be possible or impossible here. I'm trying to highlight what kind of physical phenomena we have actually documented through modern scientific observation and testing. <br /><br />Note also that I have deliberately avoided the words "natural" and "supernatural." What matters to me is the fact that Jesus' resurrection (in orthodox theology) was a physical event. Science studies the physical world, and could tell us if a body physically returning to life after 3 days of brain death has ever been documented in modern medicine. If it has not been documented, I would describe that kind of phenomenon as "paranormal." <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086446942367135553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-76651620675199949472017-04-28T14:08:43.390-07:002017-04-28T14:08:43.390-07:00Matthew: Thanks for commenting. I'm at the ai...Matthew: Thanks for commenting. I'm at the airport waiting to board a flight to Shanghai, so it'll be a couple weeks or more before I can read your comments more carefully and respond. (Their firewall keeps Blogger mostly out.) David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-81452293139944247202017-04-28T12:02:43.112-07:002017-04-28T12:02:43.112-07:00Typo in the third comment, last sentence: "We...Typo in the third comment, last sentence: "We would at the very least be doing an *unusual* kind of history."Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086446942367135553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-86404532701513894332017-04-28T11:59:23.163-07:002017-04-28T11:59:23.163-07:00Also, I would add that when I talk about “existing...Also, I would add that when I talk about “existing knowledge,” bear in mind that I am operating from the minimal facts framework. It is not a “minimal fact” accepted by a consensus of scholars that God exists or miraculously intervenes in the world. To assume so, therefore, would be ad hoc, in that it exceeds the minimal premises that the apologetic is based on.<br /><br />It should also be pointed out that, while existing scientific knowledge is usually not brought up as part of the “minimal facts,” I think all scholars would agree that it is within the realm of documented physical phenomena that bodies can be stolen from their graves and that people can spread false rumors about a resurrection. It is not a general ad hoc assumption, therefore, to argue that these things could have possibly occurred in the case of Jesus. <br /><br />I realize that you prefer to operate from more than a minimal facts approach, but I bring this up to contextualize what I meant by “existing knowledge” and ad hoc assumptions, within the framework of the argument. <br /><br />(I deleted these same remarks in the previous comment, due to a typo.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086446942367135553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-79977932751955352602017-04-28T11:56:28.724-07:002017-04-28T11:56:28.724-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086446942367135553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-23178941016851699142017-04-28T11:51:50.109-07:002017-04-28T11:51:50.109-07:00When I referred to “bracketing” claims of such con...When I referred to “bracketing” claims of such content, I did not mean “assume they cannot be true.” What I meant is that we acknowledge that they involve kinds of phenomena that are categorically different from ordinary claims (in that the one has never been documented by current scientific observation, while the other has), and that we therefore acknowledge that there is an added component of philosophy or theology (or at least parapsychology) when dealing with these special kinds of questions. I would categorize resurrection apologetics under “philosophy of religion.” I would not categorize it under “history,” even if it makes use of some of its methods. <br /><br />I also do think there is a significant difference from ordinary “academic concerns” and the “desire to evangelize” when the latter seems to spend far more time targeting a general audience, and likewise has influenced university doctrinal statements. You don’t see historians of Julius Caesar eagerly trying to reach the public, repeatedly challenging others to public debates, and trying to get people to change their worldview. You also don’t see faith-based universities with doctrinal statements that pertain to historical claims about Julius Caesar. There seems to be a dogmatic and evangelistic component to resurrection apologetics that is usually absent from most of academic history. <br /><br />The closest parallel that I can think of is a historian trying to reach out the public in combating Holocaust denial or 9/11 conspiracy theories, but even then, those issues haven’t resulted in faith-based universities with doctrinal statements about such things, and they only pertain to particular claims about the past, not attempts to get people to change their worldview. The added theological component, I would argue, makes resurrection apologetics and evangelism once more different from ordinary historical research. I’m willing to engage its arguments, but I won’t operate under the pretense that we are doing just ordinary history. We would at the very least be doing an usual kind of history. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086446942367135553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-41032209091800441022017-04-28T11:51:11.704-07:002017-04-28T11:51:11.704-07:00Now, I bring up this distinction, because it shows...Now, I bring up this distinction, because it shows that when we discuss the resurrection “historically,” we are dealing with a kind of claim that is categorically different from an event like Caesar crossing the Rubicon. It is not a paranormal phenomenon that generals cross rivers during times of war to invade a country. Nor is it paranormal that bodies might be stolen from their graves, or that false stories might be spread about a dead man returning to life. <br /><br />I bring this up because it is wrong to frame historical apologetics for the resurrection as just doing ordinary history. It’s not ordinary history, even if the methods used might be similar. It’s a very exceptional kind of history that has no parallel in Classical Studies, in that it seeks to prove a kind of (paranormal) phenomenon that no Classicist that I am aware of seeks to prove. <br /><br />I’m also not talking about “proscribing the work of God.” I’m just talking about science documenting what ordinarily happens physically and what ordinarily does not happen physically. All of this can be answered empirically without making any theological assumptions. <br /><br />With regard to the UFO example, it doesn’t matter if aliens would face difficulties traveling the vast distance of space naturally, whereas God would have no problem raising Jesus supernaturally. Both events would still be paranormal phenomena, wholly apart from their cause, and its affect on their probability. Plus, one could even argue that the aliens were given supernatural aid by God to reach earth, and make the same kind of argument that a skeptic is “presupposing” that God can’t give aliens access to earth in order to abduct humans. <br /><br />While the article mentions “scientific assumptions” (not my wording in including the quotation), I am not talking about assumptions in terms of what God can or cannot do, or what a super advanced race might be able to technologically do or not. I am talking about assumptions reached according to current scientific documentation. It is documented that no human being has ever risen from the dead on the 3rd day after brain death, and so you might call it an assumption (a postiori) that this is a physical limitation on human anatomy. <br /><br />What I would like apologists to do, if they want to treat the resurrection as an ordinary historical claim, is find an example of a Classicist or ancient historian who argues that we can use ancient texts to prove a paranormal event (it doesn’t have to be supernatural). I have never seen one do so, and that makes resurrection apologetics look quite different in terms of the content of historical claim that they are focusing on. <br /><br />Craig Keener has not shown scientifically that miracles occur in the world. The claims that he has compiled have not been vetted by a peer-reviewed scientific, medical, or parapsychological publisher. Keener also hasn’t even provided an anecdote for the kind of remarkable resurrection (not just resuscitation) described in the case of Jesus.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086446942367135553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-68909095673449104772017-04-28T11:50:24.689-07:002017-04-28T11:50:24.689-07:00David,
I am working on a peer-reviewed article a...David, <br /><br />I am working on a peer-reviewed article at the moment, so I will only make a few points right now to respond to this:<br /><br />First off, the reason why I brought up the distinction of the “paranormal” was to focus on the phenomenon itself, not whatever its cause may be. A phenomenon is paranormal if it exceeds ordinary physical limitations documented by scientific observation. <br /><br />A body after 3 days of brain death physically returning back to life exceeds all current medical documentation of human death and decay. It would therefore be a “paranormal” event. It doesn’t matter if it was caused by a miracle of God, or if God’s intervention would make the event more probable. The event itself would still be categorically paranormal, and different from a claim like a body being stolen from its place of burial, which does not exceed ordinary physical limitations documented by science. <br /><br />It’s also wrong to frame this as if I am “presupposing” that such an event is outside the realm of ordinary physical limitations. That billions of human beings die and don’t rise from brain death back to life on the 3rd day has been documented by ample medical evidence. It is an observed conclusion that has been reached a postiori, and not a priori. <br /><br />It’s also worth noting that Jesus’ resurrection, according to standard Christian theology, involves more than just a body resuscitating to life. Jesus rose into an immortal and imperishable body, not just into his old body, which would eventually die again. As William Craig (Knowing the Truth about the Resurrection, pg. 15) argues:<br /><br />"Jesus rose to eternal life in a radically transformed body that can be described as immortal, glorious, powerful, and supernatural. In this new mode of existence, he was not bound by the physical limitations of the universe, but possessed superhuman powers." <br /><br />That makes the kind of event described in the Gospel even further paranormal, and outside the realm of what has been documented in medical science about human anatomy. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03086446942367135553noreply@blogger.com