tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post790236520188840760..comments2024-03-25T02:16:16.247-07:00Comments on Christ the Tao: The Miracles of JesusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-70105579479678355962020-02-18T07:55:47.812-08:002020-02-18T07:55:47.812-08:00"Could it be that much of the force of Humean..."Could it be that much of the force of Humean skepticism - orbiting teapots, pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters, and other beloved beasts in the skeptical menagerie, derives precisely from the silliness of the examples to which they appeal? Is this, indeed, simply a cheap Steven Colbert-style form of mockery?"<br /><br />Yes I think you make a very important point about context. Context is very important. <br /><br />Also it is fair to say we all bring our philosophical and religious views with us after we evaluate the historical evidence. (although i think this should be done seperately) So I think it is fair for an atheist to say yes I would normally believe what is said but since I have strong views that supernatural entities such as God does not exist I do not believe this happened. To some extent I would take the same approach with Bert. I believe miracles happen in a Christian context. The Bert miracle is not the sort of thing the Christian God would do. Its not that I think supernatural actions are impossible but I do have views about how God would act in the world and Bert's story conflicts with that. <br /><br />So Bert's story conflicts with the Christian view of miracles. I have to consider the evidence for Christian miracles and they would weigh *against* Bert's miracle. <br /><br />This is allowing my religious views to shape my views of miracles. But that does not mean my views are biased, since my religious views are based on evidence of Christian miracles. <br /><br /><br />BTW I do not think the notion of the philosophical burden of proof is very helpful and I addressed why some of the arguments like the tea pot and pink unicorns don't really show there is a burden of proof. <br /> <br />https://trueandreasonable.co/2018/01/11/the-conjunction-fallacy-and-the-burden-of-proof/<br />Joe Mccarronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16885176319494483585noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-46241078380306949792019-02-04T07:44:36.676-08:002019-02-04T07:44:36.676-08:00Good points.
That is a level of analysis that i...Good points. <br /><br />That is a level of analysis that is common and useful in NT studies. I touch on it in Jesus is No Myth with a criterion called "realistic detail." My goal here is to add something from the anthropology of miracles. David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5071813.post-49905905229870310662019-02-04T03:03:36.303-08:002019-02-04T03:03:36.303-08:00If the Gospel writers invented the miracles then t...If the Gospel writers invented the miracles then they were exceptionally clever about it. Consider the healing of blind Bartimaeus in Mark 10. Mark is, of course, writing for a Greek speaking audience. He introduces the character of Bartimaeus and casually explains that the name means son of Timaeus, as it would in Aramaic. Then Mark recounts the healing miracle. Now imagine how strange this is if Mark has invented the episode. He has created a character, gone to the trouble of giving that character an Aramaic name that would mean nothing to Greek speakers and then explained the meaning of that name for their benefit. Why go to all that trouble if you just want to tell tall tales? <br /><br />Another example is the healing of the man born blind in John 9. After the miracle has taken place, people are debating whether the man who can now see is the same one who was blind before. What a curious detail to include in a fictional account! But it makes perfect sense if the miracle actually happened. The whole demeanour of a man who suddenly acquires sight would change completely. To those who didn’t know the man intimately, he might look like a different person. And those who doubt the possibility of miracles will often say anything to explain them away. It would be easier for those people to deny that it is the same man than it would be to admit a miracle. So either the miracle really happened or John has a unique ability to imagine the ramifications of his “fictional” scenario.<br />David Madisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17669408537169304193noreply@blogger.com