>CC>Hmmm. Since such stories are to be found in a number of religions
> >predating Christ and occurring in other parts of the world.
Stephen
>No. There are mythical stories in other religions which have vague
>similarities to some of the Christian gospel accounts, but on closer
>inspection they are not the same.
Chris
Except in all *essential* respects. Differences in details are
inconsequential. The point is that there is nothing basic about the Jesus
stories to distinguish them from other stories about gods, gurus, prophets,
and the like. They are all, so far as we can tell, merely human artifacts,
deriving from wishful thinking, fears, hopes, dreads, and existing basic
world-views and cultural factors. Such stories arise in all cultures where
people are intellectually unsophisticated, credulous, and eager.
Stephen
>Of course an atheist who wants to deny the Christian gospel accounts using
>these mythical stories as a pretext to reject Christianity, is free to do so.
>But if the gospel accounts are *true* the atheist will be held accountable
>for that rejection.
Chris
Ah, the theistic threat again, instead of *evidence*. I'm absolutely
willing to be held accountable for my beliefs. *If* there is a God who is
all-knowing, he already knows *exactly* why I believe what I believe, and
why I reject what I reject. If he is all-knowing, he also knows that I have
no choice in the matter, any more than I have a choice about whether
2+2=76. Will he punish me for being honest and conscientious, for seeking
to believe only truth and to reject falsehoods or arbitrary assertions
until there is evidence that they *are* true? If he would, even knowing the
intimate details of my thinking processes and motivations, then he is,
indeed, and evil monster.
>CC>The people who
> >make these things up are either just telling innocent "stories" that get
> >spread and become "truth" by doing so, and then get written down as some
> >sort of "gospel."
Stephen
>No. There was no time for these stories to become myths. There were too many
>eyewitnesses and too many named names, dates and facts.
Chris
Stories can become myths in matter of days, weeks, or months, at least
insofar as is needed to account for the gospels, etc.
Stephen
>Besides, if they were myths, Josephus could have punctured them.. He was
>born in
>Jerusalem 4-7 years after Jesus' death and he confirmed the historicity of
>Jesus and
>many key New Testament characters.
Chris
4-7 years after Jesus's *alleged* death. How could he confirm the
historicity of Jesus? By recounting tales told to him by others? Tales that
came to him from *Christians*, who got them from other Christians (etc.)?
If you are right about this, it empties Josephus's remarks of virtually
*all* significance; he might have been doing nothing more than the local
equivalent of quoting the National Enquirer, or believing some TV-psychic,
or accepting the claims that magnets strapped onto one's body cure
diseases, etc.
I had hoped for something meaningful, and here you are claiming, by
implication, that Josephus may have been doing nothing more than passing on
the same stories that eventually found their way into the New Testament.
I'm truly disappointed. I had suspicions that the quotes of Josephus were
not significant, but never would have thought that their insignificance
would be shown by such a banal fact. I expected that I'd have to put a
little effort into uncovering the expected weakness, but here it is, right
on the surface.
>CC>They are not, generally, fraud in the literal and deliberate
> >sense, they are not deliberate chicanery. They are just fiction that has
> come
> >to be believed by the gullible, such as yourself, and then passed on to
> >*others* as the absolute truth, and built into some sort of religion.
>
>See above. This theory simply doesn't hold water. It is just wishful
>thinking on the
>part of anti-supernaturalist critics.
>
>CC>Further, the authors of the "final," written versions may very well
>think that
> >the *literal* truth of what they are writing is of no significance
> whatever in
> >comparison to what they take as the absolutely transcendent spiritual truth
> >that it promotes.
Stephen
>This doesn't apply in the gospel writers case. For example Luke starts his
>gospel
>with: a statement of intent to write straight history:
>
> Lk 1:1-4 "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the
> things that
> have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us
> by those
> who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
> Therefore,
> since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the
> beginning, it
> seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most
> excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the
> things you
> have been taught.
Chris
Straight history? *How* did he "investigate" everything? It's obvious from
his own words that he himself was not one of the alleged eyewitnesses. So
who are they? Did he talk to *any* of them? Apparently not; the stories
were "handed down," from unknown, unspecified sources, who may or may not
have been reliable, and who may have simply taken over the myths of the
times and dressed them up a little, as promoters of new religions often do.
>CC>Finally, I understand that, until many decades after the time of Jesus'
> >alleged existence, even *Christianity* itself did not regard the stories as
> >literal journalistic truth.
Stephen
>Chris "understands" *wrong*!
Chris
Hmm. That means that the Christian who told me this was wrong? How could
*that* be? He was a *Christian*, and we know they *always* tell the truth,
right?
No? Then how can we be so sure about Luke and the people who told *him*
stories?
> >SJ>But I am not going to repeat myself and I will start to wind down this
> >thread. I plan to do an FAQ of this prophecy to show how it: 1) establishes
> >the reality of the supernatural (and hence shows that materialism and
> >naturalism are false philosophies); and 2) how it verifies the truth of
> >Christianity. Part of this FAQ will examine naturalistic objections like
> >Paul's `fraud theory' and show how they are inadequate.
>
> >CC>If the journalistic facts are *absolutely* true as claimed, they don't
> >even remotely begin to show the reality of supernaturalism.
Stephen
>This is because Chris *absolutely* rules out "the reality of
>supernaturalism"!
Chris
Ultimately, I do. But the reason has to do with its logical impossibility.
However, I didn't think much of the evidence long *before* I realized the
logical impossibility of the supernatural (in a literal sense; I think
Existence *could* be such that it could "mimic" having a supernatural realm
and a "natural" realm, but with an ultimately naturalistic metaphysical base).
This is simply because of the logical difficulty of distinguishing between
naturalistic causes and supernatural causes for empirical data. Stephen
ignores the *point* of my remark above, and simply dismisses it without
*answering* it. He needs to specify how we can tell, on the basis of
empirical data such as the "journalistic facts," whether they were produced
by naturalistic means or by *super*naturalistic means. What is it about a
collection of observational data that makes it require a supernatural
rather than a naturalistic explanation? What *principle* can we use to
distinguish the two kinds of facts empirically? What is the principle of
demarcation? How can we *rule out* naturalistic causes for a collection of
such facts? I know of no way, and I don't even think any such way is
*possible*, so I would be *very* interested to see someone come up with
such a criterion and provide good support for it. I'm betting that I can
easily refute any such claim to having such a principle and such support
for it.
But, even without this, even if we *assume* that such evidence of the
supernatural is possible and that supernaturalistic existence itself is
possible, we still have the problem that we don't know of any cases where
the evidence *does* support supernaturalism.
Jones has certainly not provided any with his "Tales from the Bible"
approach to the issue.
>CC>Your wishful
> >thinking won't get you past the fact that there is not a single aspect
> of the
> >journalistic aspects of the story that can possibly distinguish
> >supernaturalism from naturalism.
Stephen
>See above.
Chris
Please *do* see above. Note, again, that Stephen does not *answer* my
claim; he merely *dismisses* it. That's a lot easier.
>CC>For *any* such collection of observable
> >facts, we can make an infinite number of naturalistic explanations that
> will
> >be better than *any* supernaturalistic one. This is not only implied by the
> >Principle of Naturalistic Sufficiency, it's obvious in its own right.
Stephen
I checked with several professional philosophers on another List when Chris
first
>posted this "Principle of Naturalistic Sufficiency" some months ago. They
>all said
>they had never heard of it and suggested that Chris had simply made it up!
Chris
They should have talked with *me* about it. No, I *didn't* make it up. I
didn't even discover it, though I certainly *wish* I had. I would write a
book about it and claim it as the Cogan Principle. But no, I didn't. I
merely gave it a nice name that I've not seen anywhere before.
Many before me have used it implicitly, I know, and I would imagine that
others have used it *explicitly* as well. But, it doesn't matter; I gave a
brief synopsis of my reasoning for it when I first talked about it,
reasoning that I came up with partly on my own and partly from such
philosophers as George H. Smith ("Atheism: The Case Against God").
>CC>Since it is not even *logically* possible to prove supernaturalism, you
>are
> >*hardly* going to be able to prove the truth of your *particular* special-
> >interest brand of it that you call Christianity,
Stephen
>Perhaps the word "prove" in the subject line was ill-chosen? I was probably
>picking up something that Chris had said. I agree that it is not possible
>to *absolutely* "prove" Christianity. But Christianity could be true and
>it is possible to supply *evidence* for its truth.
Chris
Such as?????
Stephen
>And if Christianity is true, it is also possible for atheists like Chris
>to deny that it is true. But if Christianity *is* true, then atheists
>like Chris will themselves one day, one way or the other, *know* that it
>is true!
>
>CC>but I look forward to the illogic of your attempts.
Stephen
>Fine! We have a win-win situation! :-)
>
>Thanks again to Chris for his posts.
>
>Steve
Chris
I'm only saddened that my prediction of illogic in your attempts was so
well fulfilled.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2001 - 15:22:52 EST