They came back!
After two weeks wondering if I had simply scared them off, I received a knock on the door this morning. One of the JWs was back, but with her husband this time. She was sick, which explains the absence of 2 weeks.
We talked about some of my beliefs, and some of their beliefs. We touched on the bible a bit, but not too much. They recognized that without first having a trust that the bible is the word of God it wouldn't do much good to just tell me what it says. We talked a little about the problem of evil, about epistemology and skepticism, about science and philosophy. The Watchtower they gave me last time had an article on Plato, which I had to bring up. I think we will get into evolution at some point. The JWs are old earth creationists, but one of the things we talked about is how the bible is scientifically accurate. Something there doesn't quite compute, so we'll see what develops.
I told them that I didn't want to waste their time, but I would be happy to keep meeting with them as long as they wanted to do it. I hope that they enjoy our interactions as much as I am so far. It doesn't appear they have any illusions about converting me, but we'll see how that goes. They gave me a book called "The Bible - God's Word Or Man's?" I don't think I will learn much from it (I studied that stuff for years), but I will read it throughout the week. It will give us some things to discuss when we talk next time.
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Saturday, February 9, 2013
When "Anti-Christian" means "We aren't getting our way"
My writing here shouldn't be construed as saying that all Christians are anything like the ones who composed this list, It is simply a critique of the ridiculous presented below.
I came across this today:
Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2012
There is so much wrong with it I am having trouble finding a place to start.
Lets do a quote: “The trends that our top ten list reveals are very disturbing. No one can deny the all-out attempt to restrict our Christian liberties and censor our Christian values,” said Dr. Gary Cass from DefendChristians.org. “There does not appear to be any sign that this struggle is waning, rather it seems to be intensifying. We will be here to fight for our Christian faith and values.”
Firstly, notice that all but two of the items on the list have to do with the anti-gay positions taken by some Christians, and not Christianity itself (We'll get to those later). Of the two remaining, NEITHER OF THEM HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY!!!!
One of them is about an attack on some Obama-Care protesters. I really like the built in assumptions in that one. Obama-Care is part of the liberal agenda, the liberal agenda is anti-god. Therefore the protesters must have been good Christians and the attacker was committing an anti-Christian act. See here for more information, this article (which is from a very conservative / christian site, by the way) says nothing about the abortion mandate OR that the group was Christian (though I wouldn't doubt they were). Though physical attacks are always a bad scene, there is just no evidence this one was religiously motivated.
The other one involves a teacher inviting a "Terrorist sympathizer" to give "pro- Islamic" lectures at a school. Even if every word of this line item was true (which I seriously doubt) it STILL wouldn't constitute an anti-Christian act. At worst it would be a terrible idea, and a pro- Islam act. A pro- Islam act is NOT the same as an anti- Christian act, as if that really needed to be spelled out. To be upset that children are being exposed to a religion other than yours is the height of hypocrisy, especially given some of the other items on this list. If religious freedom means being able to share your views freely, this involves ALL religions, not just the dominant one.
As to the other eight, it just saddens me to think that restricting the human rights of same sex couples is so important as to almost entirely populate a list of "Anti-Christian" acts. It reinforces the view that Fundamentalism is really about bigotry. Many of these items don't have anything to do with Christianity either (see items 10, 9, 5, and 2) and it isn't even worth it to go through line by line. Read the article if you want.
So the number one item is (drumroll please):
" 1. President Obama endorsed homosexual "marriage,” invoking Christ to try to justify his anti-Christ position. In his announcement, Obama said “...when [I] think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”
A Christian, who also happens to be the leader of our country, speaking publicly about Jesus to millions of people.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!
Don't even get me started on the biblical assumptions underlying that statement. Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality, don't ya know.
Officially, we live in a secular nation, not a Christian one. Christians are the dominant religion here though, and exist in a position of privilege. I don't see that position slipping any time soon, and yet still you find articles like this one, lamenting that the church is losing its power to oppress the disenfranchised. How backwards is that from what Jesus came to do? You have a religion that started with a man who came to love the oppressed and unlovables, and continued through terrible persecutions. In some countries you can still be put in jail for your religious beliefs. In Texas, salvation through Christ is being taught... in public schools! Yet all of that is forgotten because some people think that all people have inherent dignity, regardless of who they love.
I came across this today:
Top Ten Anti-Christian Acts of 2012
There is so much wrong with it I am having trouble finding a place to start.
Lets do a quote: “The trends that our top ten list reveals are very disturbing. No one can deny the all-out attempt to restrict our Christian liberties and censor our Christian values,” said Dr. Gary Cass from DefendChristians.org. “There does not appear to be any sign that this struggle is waning, rather it seems to be intensifying. We will be here to fight for our Christian faith and values.”
I agree with him 100% that the trends on that list are disturbing. If this list is in any way representative of "Christian faith and values" then the church is really in trouble.
Firstly, notice that all but two of the items on the list have to do with the anti-gay positions taken by some Christians, and not Christianity itself (We'll get to those later). Of the two remaining, NEITHER OF THEM HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH CHRISTIANITY!!!!
One of them is about an attack on some Obama-Care protesters. I really like the built in assumptions in that one. Obama-Care is part of the liberal agenda, the liberal agenda is anti-god. Therefore the protesters must have been good Christians and the attacker was committing an anti-Christian act. See here for more information, this article (which is from a very conservative / christian site, by the way) says nothing about the abortion mandate OR that the group was Christian (though I wouldn't doubt they were). Though physical attacks are always a bad scene, there is just no evidence this one was religiously motivated.
The other one involves a teacher inviting a "Terrorist sympathizer" to give "pro- Islamic" lectures at a school. Even if every word of this line item was true (which I seriously doubt) it STILL wouldn't constitute an anti-Christian act. At worst it would be a terrible idea, and a pro- Islam act. A pro- Islam act is NOT the same as an anti- Christian act, as if that really needed to be spelled out. To be upset that children are being exposed to a religion other than yours is the height of hypocrisy, especially given some of the other items on this list. If religious freedom means being able to share your views freely, this involves ALL religions, not just the dominant one.
As to the other eight, it just saddens me to think that restricting the human rights of same sex couples is so important as to almost entirely populate a list of "Anti-Christian" acts. It reinforces the view that Fundamentalism is really about bigotry. Many of these items don't have anything to do with Christianity either (see items 10, 9, 5, and 2) and it isn't even worth it to go through line by line. Read the article if you want.
So the number one item is (drumroll please):
" 1. President Obama endorsed homosexual "marriage,” invoking Christ to try to justify his anti-Christ position. In his announcement, Obama said “...when [I] think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated.”
A Christian, who also happens to be the leader of our country, speaking publicly about Jesus to millions of people.
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!?!
Don't even get me started on the biblical assumptions underlying that statement. Jesus never said a single word about homosexuality, don't ya know.
Officially, we live in a secular nation, not a Christian one. Christians are the dominant religion here though, and exist in a position of privilege. I don't see that position slipping any time soon, and yet still you find articles like this one, lamenting that the church is losing its power to oppress the disenfranchised. How backwards is that from what Jesus came to do? You have a religion that started with a man who came to love the oppressed and unlovables, and continued through terrible persecutions. In some countries you can still be put in jail for your religious beliefs. In Texas, salvation through Christ is being taught... in public schools! Yet all of that is forgotten because some people think that all people have inherent dignity, regardless of who they love.
Monday, February 4, 2013
Meeting with Jehovah's Witnesses: Motives and Aspirations
On Saturday, two Jehovah's witnesses came knocking at our door. They were wanting to talk to me about Satan. It has probably been about four years since the last time we have had any JWs over, and I am always interested in talking about important subjects.
I invited them in, but they didn't stay too long. They asked me what I though about Satan, and I told them I thought it was a construct made up and often employed for the purpose of control. They shared a verse with me about what Jesus said about Satan in the book of John and gave me some pamphlets. When they asked if they could come back next week, I said "Sure, same time is fine." After they left, Gabe asked me why they were here. I explained that they believe something different than I do, but they care about us and want us to believe the same things they do. "What things?" he asked. "Well, they believe there is a magic person who tries to make people do bad things." I explained that we all are responsible for our own actions and that there is no magic person who makes us do thing against our will.
Most people wouldn't even think about inviting them back for more study, so it is probably worth it to explain why I would do such a thing, and why I would want to write about it. First, I find it hard to pass up a chance to talk to people about what's important. Secondly, I am interested in what they have to say. I don't expect either party will change their mind, but I can at least listen, share my difficulties, and see what they have to say. I want to make it clear though that I am not trying to mock or take advantage of them. I will tell them up front they are unlikely to change my mind, but that I am open to hearing what they have to say. I care deeply about truth, as I hope they do, and conversing with people who disagree with you is often a good way to move towards the truth.
As far as for writing, the main reason is that I think people might be interested. The JWs are pretty ubiquitous, and others might want to know what a study is like. I want to both chronicle my experience and to show the arguments that they use. Hopefully it will be both entertaining and informative.
Expect a post every week or so, they are coming on Saturday mornings. I suspect they will want to bring everything back to a bible study, and that the first conversation might involve the alleged Hebrew Bible prophecies of Jesus. This is just a guess though, judging from what info I have been able to glean from their website.
I guess we'll see. It's going to be an adventure.
I invited them in, but they didn't stay too long. They asked me what I though about Satan, and I told them I thought it was a construct made up and often employed for the purpose of control. They shared a verse with me about what Jesus said about Satan in the book of John and gave me some pamphlets. When they asked if they could come back next week, I said "Sure, same time is fine." After they left, Gabe asked me why they were here. I explained that they believe something different than I do, but they care about us and want us to believe the same things they do. "What things?" he asked. "Well, they believe there is a magic person who tries to make people do bad things." I explained that we all are responsible for our own actions and that there is no magic person who makes us do thing against our will.
Most people wouldn't even think about inviting them back for more study, so it is probably worth it to explain why I would do such a thing, and why I would want to write about it. First, I find it hard to pass up a chance to talk to people about what's important. Secondly, I am interested in what they have to say. I don't expect either party will change their mind, but I can at least listen, share my difficulties, and see what they have to say. I want to make it clear though that I am not trying to mock or take advantage of them. I will tell them up front they are unlikely to change my mind, but that I am open to hearing what they have to say. I care deeply about truth, as I hope they do, and conversing with people who disagree with you is often a good way to move towards the truth.
As far as for writing, the main reason is that I think people might be interested. The JWs are pretty ubiquitous, and others might want to know what a study is like. I want to both chronicle my experience and to show the arguments that they use. Hopefully it will be both entertaining and informative.
Expect a post every week or so, they are coming on Saturday mornings. I suspect they will want to bring everything back to a bible study, and that the first conversation might involve the alleged Hebrew Bible prophecies of Jesus. This is just a guess though, judging from what info I have been able to glean from their website.
I guess we'll see. It's going to be an adventure.
Sunday, November 25, 2012
MOOC's
One of the things that inspired me to start blogging again has been my experience lately with Massive Open Online Courses. So far it has been a great experience, and it is really something I can get behind. Though I don't think it will be the only thing happening in the future, I believe that this concept will play a huge role reshaping education for the information age. My experience thus far has been with the startups Coursera and Udacity, and toward the end I will look more specifically at each of them.
For you who don't know, MOOCs are a form of online education that aims for the same goals as an actual class, as opposed to just a tutorial or a surface level introduction to a subject such as is typical on the internet. They come in a variety of flavors, but there are quite a few common links. The classes are free, available to anybody who wants to sign up and take them. Typically you will be in class with people from all over the world, including people who don't have access to higher education otherwise.
Another thing is that they are very interactive. You aren't just watching lecture videos. There are questions along the way to test comprehension and make sure you are paying attention, as well as problem sets after each unit. The discussion forums are always active, giving you the ability to get extra clarification or discussion on the topics covered. There are final exams testing whether or not you learn the material, that you have to pass in order to get a class certificate.
Speaking of certificates, most of the classes you take give you a certificate if you do well on the homework and final. You don't get actual college credit, but you are able to track your progress, and demonstrate to others that you are learning these things. Both will provide your transcript (and resume, if desired) to companies looking for skilled employees, so at least for now the certificates could potentially do something for you.
At the moment all the MOOC's I have encountered skew heavily toward the tech fields. There are some humanities courses, some math courses, etc. but for the most part they work best for computer science type fields. This is great for me, but limiting overall.
The other limiting factor I have encountered is more personal. It is something that is a problem with all online classes, but seems worse for the MOOC's. This of course is the motivation factor. There is no class you need to show up for, and you aren't even paying for the class. It is easy to not take it seriously, and I find myself having to consciously remind myself to take it seriously. So far it has gone well for me, but I have witnessed quite a few dropouts already in my Crypto class.
So as to some specifics, the two differ in some significant ways. Coursera teams up with top universities, getting people in the top of their field to offer content. In addition, The classes are more traditional in that they go for a set time, with material released week by week and assignments with due dates. They also have a much wider course offering at this point.
Udacity, on the other hand, creates its content in house. It is always available, and the classes are completely self - paced. Their classes are basically all CS classes, with the exception of one physics class and one statistics class. It feels slightly less class like, and you can re-take all the assignments until you get them right. The big upsides are that you can start a class whenever you want, and learn at your own pace, both of which aren't possible with Coursera.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and for what its worth I think they are both worth checking out. I have completed one course through Udacity and am working on a second. I am currently enrolled in one with Coursera, and am starting two more in January. If you are interested in the tech fields and are a decent self learner, I can highly recommend checking them out.
www.coursera.org
www.udacity.com
For you who don't know, MOOCs are a form of online education that aims for the same goals as an actual class, as opposed to just a tutorial or a surface level introduction to a subject such as is typical on the internet. They come in a variety of flavors, but there are quite a few common links. The classes are free, available to anybody who wants to sign up and take them. Typically you will be in class with people from all over the world, including people who don't have access to higher education otherwise.
Another thing is that they are very interactive. You aren't just watching lecture videos. There are questions along the way to test comprehension and make sure you are paying attention, as well as problem sets after each unit. The discussion forums are always active, giving you the ability to get extra clarification or discussion on the topics covered. There are final exams testing whether or not you learn the material, that you have to pass in order to get a class certificate.
Speaking of certificates, most of the classes you take give you a certificate if you do well on the homework and final. You don't get actual college credit, but you are able to track your progress, and demonstrate to others that you are learning these things. Both will provide your transcript (and resume, if desired) to companies looking for skilled employees, so at least for now the certificates could potentially do something for you.
At the moment all the MOOC's I have encountered skew heavily toward the tech fields. There are some humanities courses, some math courses, etc. but for the most part they work best for computer science type fields. This is great for me, but limiting overall.
The other limiting factor I have encountered is more personal. It is something that is a problem with all online classes, but seems worse for the MOOC's. This of course is the motivation factor. There is no class you need to show up for, and you aren't even paying for the class. It is easy to not take it seriously, and I find myself having to consciously remind myself to take it seriously. So far it has gone well for me, but I have witnessed quite a few dropouts already in my Crypto class.
So as to some specifics, the two differ in some significant ways. Coursera teams up with top universities, getting people in the top of their field to offer content. In addition, The classes are more traditional in that they go for a set time, with material released week by week and assignments with due dates. They also have a much wider course offering at this point.
Udacity, on the other hand, creates its content in house. It is always available, and the classes are completely self - paced. Their classes are basically all CS classes, with the exception of one physics class and one statistics class. It feels slightly less class like, and you can re-take all the assignments until you get them right. The big upsides are that you can start a class whenever you want, and learn at your own pace, both of which aren't possible with Coursera.
They both have their strengths and weaknesses, and for what its worth I think they are both worth checking out. I have completed one course through Udacity and am working on a second. I am currently enrolled in one with Coursera, and am starting two more in January. If you are interested in the tech fields and are a decent self learner, I can highly recommend checking them out.
www.coursera.org
www.udacity.com
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Truncated
I have re-opened my blog in a severly truncated form. Sorry for any lost references or links. For anybody still listening I should be writing again in the near future.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Did dinosaurs live with people?
A few days ago I learned of the most recent Gallup poll, showing support for young earth creationism holding at 46%. It has stayed around that level since they started the poll in 1982. This is shocking to me, even though I know it shouldn't be.
When I was a kid I was really interested in dinosaurs. I had tons of models of them, and liked to read and study about them. One thing I can remember is wondering if people and dinosaurs were ever around together. At the time (and now) I thought that would have been pretty dang cool to see dinosaurs around.
As a result of an upbringing that helped me to study and find the answers to my questions, I never was able to buy in to the young earth viewpoint even at churches where that was the norm. My early experience with dinosaurs helped me by giving me an understanding of how the scientists learn about the world. Of course the intricacies of it were lost on a 6 year old, but the gist was clear. Different things show up at different times in the past in predictable patterns. Scientists learn about these things by careful excavation of the layers of the earth, and by specialized ways of finding out how old they are.
This stuff still fascinates me. If any of the above is news to you, I would highly recommend taking an anthropology class, or geology, or at least reading some books on the subject. It is incredibly cool, and it has been great looking at it all again now that I am older. I am learning so much more while also connecting to something that has fascinated me since childhood.
What if, instead of going to the library and picking up some basic textbooks about paleontology, my parents had given me a book like this one (by noted creationist Ken Ham):
Note the people, primates, fruit trees and dino's all hanging out together. Note the 2 clearly carnivorous dino's eating from said fruit trees. This book also claims to answer the questions I had about dinosaurs as a kid, but comes to drastically different conclusions. I would have learned that the conclusions of the scientists were unreliable because they relied on faulty presuppositions. I would have learned that any science that deals with the past can't be verified because it can't be repeated in current experiments. I would have learned that dinosaurs and humans did coexist, peacefully even, before the fall.
Growing up, this viewpoint on scientists would have tainted my whole worldview. The early distrust of science in certain evangelical circles is reinforced by the insularity of the evangelical subculture I would have been raised in. Most of the people I grew up with would probably believe the same things I did. By the time I encounter a different viewpoint on human origins or fossils or dinosaurs, it will sound so ridiculous as to not even warrant the time of day. If I do hear some good arguments for the "secular" view, I can always go to Answers in Genesis to remind me that my viewpoint is the right one. This is a classic example of confirmation bias, something that everybody in the world needs to watch out for, and that we can never entirely eliminate. It would have been possible to go my whole life without ever directly encountering the "secular" viewpoint on this subject. Overall, it would have been incredibly difficult for me to change my views on these things, regardless of how smart I was.
Outside my hypothetical dream childhood, this is the situation a significant portion of Americans grow up in. The shock I feel at those statistics in the Gallup poll is completely unwarranted. It is only by an accident of birth that I grew up in a family that valued learning as much as mine did. As a result, I am trying to do better at understanding the root of these anti-science attitudes instead of just dismissing them. I want to know what makes these beliefs so strong and what could change people's mind on the subject.
I know that my viewpoints on a lot of subjects has changed in the past few years, and one of the reasons has been my regression to a child-like desire for knowledge. I really started studying in earnest again, and allowed myself the freedom to accept the truth, even if it didn't agree with me. I think if I hadn't had that spark encouraged growing up that I would not have been so willing to change my mind in the present.
When I was a kid I was really interested in dinosaurs. I had tons of models of them, and liked to read and study about them. One thing I can remember is wondering if people and dinosaurs were ever around together. At the time (and now) I thought that would have been pretty dang cool to see dinosaurs around.
Fortunately for me, my parents taught me how to do research. They would take me to the library and we would check out books about dinosaurs. In that way I learned about paleontology, fossils, the age of the earth, the various geographic eons and how they all contained different plants and animals.
As a result of an upbringing that helped me to study and find the answers to my questions, I never was able to buy in to the young earth viewpoint even at churches where that was the norm. My early experience with dinosaurs helped me by giving me an understanding of how the scientists learn about the world. Of course the intricacies of it were lost on a 6 year old, but the gist was clear. Different things show up at different times in the past in predictable patterns. Scientists learn about these things by careful excavation of the layers of the earth, and by specialized ways of finding out how old they are.
This stuff still fascinates me. If any of the above is news to you, I would highly recommend taking an anthropology class, or geology, or at least reading some books on the subject. It is incredibly cool, and it has been great looking at it all again now that I am older. I am learning so much more while also connecting to something that has fascinated me since childhood.
What if, instead of going to the library and picking up some basic textbooks about paleontology, my parents had given me a book like this one (by noted creationist Ken Ham):
Note the people, primates, fruit trees and dino's all hanging out together. Note the 2 clearly carnivorous dino's eating from said fruit trees. This book also claims to answer the questions I had about dinosaurs as a kid, but comes to drastically different conclusions. I would have learned that the conclusions of the scientists were unreliable because they relied on faulty presuppositions. I would have learned that any science that deals with the past can't be verified because it can't be repeated in current experiments. I would have learned that dinosaurs and humans did coexist, peacefully even, before the fall.
Growing up, this viewpoint on scientists would have tainted my whole worldview. The early distrust of science in certain evangelical circles is reinforced by the insularity of the evangelical subculture I would have been raised in. Most of the people I grew up with would probably believe the same things I did. By the time I encounter a different viewpoint on human origins or fossils or dinosaurs, it will sound so ridiculous as to not even warrant the time of day. If I do hear some good arguments for the "secular" view, I can always go to Answers in Genesis to remind me that my viewpoint is the right one. This is a classic example of confirmation bias, something that everybody in the world needs to watch out for, and that we can never entirely eliminate. It would have been possible to go my whole life without ever directly encountering the "secular" viewpoint on this subject. Overall, it would have been incredibly difficult for me to change my views on these things, regardless of how smart I was.
Outside my hypothetical dream childhood, this is the situation a significant portion of Americans grow up in. The shock I feel at those statistics in the Gallup poll is completely unwarranted. It is only by an accident of birth that I grew up in a family that valued learning as much as mine did. As a result, I am trying to do better at understanding the root of these anti-science attitudes instead of just dismissing them. I want to know what makes these beliefs so strong and what could change people's mind on the subject.
I know that my viewpoints on a lot of subjects has changed in the past few years, and one of the reasons has been my regression to a child-like desire for knowledge. I really started studying in earnest again, and allowed myself the freedom to accept the truth, even if it didn't agree with me. I think if I hadn't had that spark encouraged growing up that I would not have been so willing to change my mind in the present.
Tuesday, April 24, 2012
Magician Pranksters, A response to Stephen Law
Stephen Law recently wrote an article arguing for skepticism regarding the existence of a historical Jesus. It can be found in its entirety here. It is an interesting article, written purely from a philosophical perspective, and not from a historical one. I should note he doesn't endorse mythicism, the belief that Jesus did NOT exist. He simply advocates for a skeptical position regarding the whole thing. Also, the rest of this post won't make sense unless you go read his article.
Law argues for 2 claims, using some thought experiments to intuitively justify them. He then uses those claims to form his argument for skepticism.
P1 Where a claim’s justification derives solely from evidence, extraordinary claims (e.g. concerning supernatural miracles) require extraordinary evidence. In the absence of extraordinary evidence there is good reason to be sceptical about those claims.
I am willing to grant this one. The bottom line he is going for is that we don't have enough evidence from the NT documents to justify the miracle claims therein. I think this is reasonable for the point he is trying to make, even if there is some argument over what counts as "extraordinary."
P2 Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.
I disagree that this claim is reasonable, as I hope to show in my thought experiments. The background information we possess is just as important in evaluating testimony as any independent evidence of the mundane claims in question. Unless Mr. Law is willing to say that background information counts as independent evidence, P2 is invalid. If background information does count, it is unclear that P2 undercuts belief in Jesus' existence.
I will present an alternative to the "Ted and Sarah" thought experiment and another that I think better represents the evidence we have in the New Testament, and argue that the conclusions we draw are different in my situation, even though there is no additional evidence on the specific mundane facts we have in question.
Consider "The Magician Pranksters."
You read online about a group of anonymous individuals who are inviting themselves into peoples houses and performing magic tricks for them, then leaving without any explanation. The article gives good evidence that this is happening, as some sort of new prank kids are pulling these days.
Your friends Ted and Sarah come to you one day explaining that some people came into their house and did some really miraculous things. One of them made their couch float in the air, and the other one cut off her hand and then reattached it. Then, they both got up and walked through the front door while it was still closed. Both Ted and Sarah are absolutely convinced of the miraculous nature of these events, and neither mentions or knows anything about the online article you read. They stand by their story while you question them, insisting on what they saw.
Note that the story they tell involves a multitude of miraculous happenings integral to what happened, and that you have no independent evidence that Ted and Sarah had people to their house. According to P2, we have "good reason to be skeptical of the mundane claims" being made here, but intuitively that is not the case. If the example seems far fetched, or if you feel the article constitutes independent evidence, try this one.
"The Faith Healer"
A friend tells you she went to a big tent revival and saw a faith healer. She then regales you for a half hour on all the miraculous things she saw there. These include a man in a wheelchair getting up and walking, demons being cast out, long lasting pains being healed, and even a dead man in the basement being brought back to life. She tells you that the healer prophesied things about her that nobody could have known. You didn't read about the gathering in the paper or anything, and have no other evidence regarding it having taken place.
This is a perfectly realistic scenario, and according to P2 we are justified in doubting our friend ever went to a big tent revival. I think most people would find that conclusion absurd. In fact, the only evidence you would expect to find for a faith healer, regardless if you believe in that or not, is reports of a miraculous nature. It would be silly to assume that most faith healers didn't exist on account of the fact that testimony in regards to them often mixes the miraculous with the mundane. While we have every right to doubt the miraculous nature of what she witnessed, we recognize that such experiences are incredibly probable in the context of a big tent revival.
So there is a problem with P2 as it stands, and I would further suggest that the situation we have with regards to Jesus is closer to those I mention than to Mr. Law's examples. The reports we have of Jesus suggest he was a faith healer, and also a religious and political leader (a messiah). We know from non-biblical sources that healers and messiahs were relatively common during the time Jesus supposedly was teaching. We also know from current as well as ancient evidence that faith healers have miracles ascribed to them as a result of their vocation (it's right there in the title for God's sake). Further, we know from almost ALL ancient historical evidence that movement leaders have apocryphal and legendary stories attributed to them.
So the evidence we have for the existence of Jesus is consistent with his being recognized by his followers as an extraordinary individual. Much like our faith healer exists in a role today where we would expect miraculous stories to abound around them, Jesus was in a role in which we could expect miraculous stories to flock to him as well. Though this in no way is meant to prove he did exist, I think it shows that we have no more reason to be skeptical of his existence on account of the stories surrounding his life. There are certain contexts where those stories are expected, even if they are false.
Law argues for 2 claims, using some thought experiments to intuitively justify them. He then uses those claims to form his argument for skepticism.
P1 Where a claim’s justification derives solely from evidence, extraordinary claims (e.g. concerning supernatural miracles) require extraordinary evidence. In the absence of extraordinary evidence there is good reason to be sceptical about those claims.
I am willing to grant this one. The bottom line he is going for is that we don't have enough evidence from the NT documents to justify the miracle claims therein. I think this is reasonable for the point he is trying to make, even if there is some argument over what counts as "extraordinary."
P2 Where testimony/documents weave together a narrative that combines mundane claims with a significant proportion of extraordinary claims, and there is good reason to be sceptical about those extraordinary claims, then there is good reason to be sceptical about the mundane claims, at least until we possess good independent evidence of their truth.
I disagree that this claim is reasonable, as I hope to show in my thought experiments. The background information we possess is just as important in evaluating testimony as any independent evidence of the mundane claims in question. Unless Mr. Law is willing to say that background information counts as independent evidence, P2 is invalid. If background information does count, it is unclear that P2 undercuts belief in Jesus' existence.
I will present an alternative to the "Ted and Sarah" thought experiment and another that I think better represents the evidence we have in the New Testament, and argue that the conclusions we draw are different in my situation, even though there is no additional evidence on the specific mundane facts we have in question.
Consider "The Magician Pranksters."
You read online about a group of anonymous individuals who are inviting themselves into peoples houses and performing magic tricks for them, then leaving without any explanation. The article gives good evidence that this is happening, as some sort of new prank kids are pulling these days.
Your friends Ted and Sarah come to you one day explaining that some people came into their house and did some really miraculous things. One of them made their couch float in the air, and the other one cut off her hand and then reattached it. Then, they both got up and walked through the front door while it was still closed. Both Ted and Sarah are absolutely convinced of the miraculous nature of these events, and neither mentions or knows anything about the online article you read. They stand by their story while you question them, insisting on what they saw.
Note that the story they tell involves a multitude of miraculous happenings integral to what happened, and that you have no independent evidence that Ted and Sarah had people to their house. According to P2, we have "good reason to be skeptical of the mundane claims" being made here, but intuitively that is not the case. If the example seems far fetched, or if you feel the article constitutes independent evidence, try this one.
"The Faith Healer"
A friend tells you she went to a big tent revival and saw a faith healer. She then regales you for a half hour on all the miraculous things she saw there. These include a man in a wheelchair getting up and walking, demons being cast out, long lasting pains being healed, and even a dead man in the basement being brought back to life. She tells you that the healer prophesied things about her that nobody could have known. You didn't read about the gathering in the paper or anything, and have no other evidence regarding it having taken place.
This is a perfectly realistic scenario, and according to P2 we are justified in doubting our friend ever went to a big tent revival. I think most people would find that conclusion absurd. In fact, the only evidence you would expect to find for a faith healer, regardless if you believe in that or not, is reports of a miraculous nature. It would be silly to assume that most faith healers didn't exist on account of the fact that testimony in regards to them often mixes the miraculous with the mundane. While we have every right to doubt the miraculous nature of what she witnessed, we recognize that such experiences are incredibly probable in the context of a big tent revival.
So there is a problem with P2 as it stands, and I would further suggest that the situation we have with regards to Jesus is closer to those I mention than to Mr. Law's examples. The reports we have of Jesus suggest he was a faith healer, and also a religious and political leader (a messiah). We know from non-biblical sources that healers and messiahs were relatively common during the time Jesus supposedly was teaching. We also know from current as well as ancient evidence that faith healers have miracles ascribed to them as a result of their vocation (it's right there in the title for God's sake). Further, we know from almost ALL ancient historical evidence that movement leaders have apocryphal and legendary stories attributed to them.
So the evidence we have for the existence of Jesus is consistent with his being recognized by his followers as an extraordinary individual. Much like our faith healer exists in a role today where we would expect miraculous stories to abound around them, Jesus was in a role in which we could expect miraculous stories to flock to him as well. Though this in no way is meant to prove he did exist, I think it shows that we have no more reason to be skeptical of his existence on account of the stories surrounding his life. There are certain contexts where those stories are expected, even if they are false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)