Hi Scott
>-----Original Message-----
>From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu]On
>Behalf Of Scott Tucker
>Sent: Monday, January 21, 2002 8:51 PM
>Glen Morton wrote:
...
>Similarly,
>> we have to believe the sense data the disciples experienced, or
>we have no
>> basis for beleiving the resurrection. A guy was visibly dead and
>then he was
>> alive. That conclusion can only be based upon various forms of sense
>> data--feeling no pulse, seeing and feeling no breathing, seeing the palid
>> skin, etc.
>
>I agree with this, but as Moorad pointed out earlier, believing something
>based on scientific observation vs. something based on testimony and
>evidence seem to be of a different nature, epistemologically.
You believe about 99.99% of what you do based upon testimony of others.
Every article you read in Nature or Science requires that you trust the
testimony of those who have had experiences (done experiements) which you
haven't. So, are you going to believe those people's sense data or not?
That is the issue. Because of this there is very little which is 'proven' in
the sense that you and Moorad are trying to wriggle into.
>
>My impression from several on the list is that the former is
>regarded with a
>higher "value" than the latter, and when in conflict, the former takes
>precedence -- e.g. resurrection appears to violate known observational
>principles, and is unique (more or less), therefore, it should be more
>reasonable to attribute some other explanation to the resurrection story
>than the evidential one (supernatural intervention -- a miracle).
Agreed, the resurrection violates known principles, but you depend upon the
sense data of the apostles to not place another explanation upon it. The
fact that he was dead 3 days is one of the items that makes this more than a
mere revival after 'temporary' death as happens with drownings. If you don't
believe the sense data of the apostles, then you can place whatever
interpretation you want. Examples: Jesus was not dead 3 days, that is
false; Jesus didn't really die but just looked dead and fooled everyone; the
whole story is a fabrication of a bunch of religious fanatics etc. The real
question about the resurrection is whether you believe the eye-witness
testimony or not. The same question faces us every day in science as we
read scientific reports. When we do believe them, we don't repeat the
experiment. When we don't, we get other observational data and write a
rebuttal.
>
>Applied to evolution (is this fair?), based on observation, we should
>conclude that organic evolution is the more likely explanation for the
>progression (and perhaps, origin) of life, rather than a supernatural
>intervention/miracle, as one might conclude by the testimony of scripture.
When it comes to creaton, as the YECs often point out, there were no
observers. Thus, what we are dealing with is an INTERPRETATION of the
Scripture, not eye-witness testimony. So instead of saying "as one might
conclude by the testimony of scripture" you should say "as one might
conclude by the interpretation of scripture"
>
>I am probably looking at it naïvely, but I can hardly blame the special
>creationist for using the same line of reasoning used here to defend the
>resurrection, by extension to defend things like YEC etc.
The YECs are not inconsistent here but every scrap of other observational
data makes them consistently on the wrong side of observation.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 22 2002 - 01:07:20 EST