A repost for Matthew
Michael W. Fisher mwfisher@cts.com
Tue, 1 Sep 1998 14:14:58 -0700 (00904702498, 000401bdd5ed$92bd8020$9d495ecc@mwfisher.cts.com)
Matthew Bell sent: Thursday, August 27, 1998 6:29 AM
>
> > >M.BELL
> > >I have stated the precisely worded proposition above (now point 1
below)
> > >
> > >'1. With the evidence we have, and in the balance of probabilities
Jesus
> >>was a real historical person'.
>
>M.FISHER
> Hmm. Okay, please interact with the quoted material of David Hume below,
> and explain how whatever it is that you believe qualifies as "evidence"
> survives Hume's inquiry and produces any positive "balance of
probabilities"
> for either
>
> 1.) Jesus actual existence as a holy man in Palestine
> 2.) Jesus' being a miracle working "son of God".
>
> If, on balance, you feel you can prove 1, but not 2, then please tell us
> what of any importance is that accomplishment? That there were many would
be
> messiahs in Palestine no one doubts.
M.BELL {not reading the question, on must note}
Point 1 has already been answered in the above
quoted proposition, ''1. With the evidence we
have, and in the balance of probabilities Jesus
was a real historical person'.
[Elf]
Um, the question was, I'll quote it verbatim here, in pieces:
"explain how whatever it is that you believe qualifies as "evidence"
> survives Hume's inquiry and produces any positive "balance of
probabilities"
> for either
>
* 1.) Jesus actual existence as a holy man in Palestine"
You have provided zip, zilch, zero, not a damn piece of whatever it is that
you think it is provides evidence for the actual physical evidence of the
existence of Jesus.
Since I am disinclined to play guessing games with people who show not the
least hesitation in redefining words to suit their own purposes, among other
acts of intellectual dishonesty, I rather insist that you state precisely
what it is that you think is "evidence" for #1.
]M.BELL]
Point 2 can never be proven.
[Elf]
Is this an admission then that the miracle stories in the New Testament are
all myth?
Can we then take it that the [facially contrived] little stories of prophecy
fulfillment [such as the entry into Jerusalem on the back(s) of (a)
donkey(s)]are likewise pure fantasy, in those cases written in after the
fact?
[M.BELL]
The accomplishment of no 1 is self-evident,
[Elf]
There is nothing "self evident" about it in the least. The gospels consist
of a series of miracle/holy stories that - in any other context - are
immediately dismissed as prima facie false BECAUSE they refer to miracles or
are transparent little stories written just to meet some prophetic
necessity - like the entry into Jerusalem.
Let's let Hume speak for a moment further:
"One of the best attested miracles in all profane history, is that which
Tacitus reports of Vespasian, who cured a bland man in Alexandria, by means
of his spittle, and a lame man by the mere touch of his foot; in obedience
to a vision of the god Serapis, who had enjoined them to have recourse to
the Emperor, for these miraculous cures. The story may seen in that fine
historian; where every circumstance seems to add weight to the testimony,
and might be displayed at large with all the force of argument and
eloquence, if any one were now concerned to enforce the evidence of that
exploded and idolatrous superstition. The gravity, solidity, age, and
probity of so great an emperor, who, through the whole course of his life,
conversed in a familiar manner with his friends and courtiers, and never
affected those extraordinary airs of divinity assumed by Alexander and
Demetrius. The historian, a cotemporary writer, noted for candour and
veracity, and withal, the greatest and most penetrating genius, perhaps, of
all antiquity; and so free from any tendency to credulity, that he even lies
under the contrary imputation, of atheism and profaneness: The persons, from
whose authority he related the miracle, of established character for
judgment and veracity, as we may well presume; eye-witnesses of the fact,
and confirming their testimony, after the Flavian family was despoiled of
the empire, and could no longer give any reward, as the price of a lie.
"Utrumque, qui interfuere, nunc quoque memorant, postquam nullum mendacio
pretium" {a translation by any of the classical language experts on the list
gratefully requested - elf} . To which if we add the public nature of the
facts, as related, it will appear, that no evidence can well be supposed
stronger for gross and so palpable a falsehood".
If we so summarily dismiss so well attested a miracle story, then by what
rights can we accept any of the miracle tales of Jesus?
And if we delete all the miracle tales, little is left, and such as is lies
under the cloud of writers so credulous as to have uncritically reported all
the miracles as true. If they were so credulous regarding the incredible,
how much weight can we give their anonymous testimony regarding anything
else about the biblical figure of Jesus?
[M.BELL]
if one carried out my above
proposition then there would be a Jesus for Christians
to make the claim of point 2 as the Gospel accounts
do.
[Elf]
And how are we to go about "carr[ying] out [your] above proposition" ? You
provide us with not one whit of whatever it is you are accepting as
evidence.
Not knowing what evidence it is that we are to evaluate, how can we possibly
evaluate it?
MWF (quoting Hume)
> "It is experience only, which gives authority to human testimony; and it
is
> the same experience, which assures us of the laws of nature. When,
> therefore, these two kinds of experience are contrary, we have nothing to
do
> but subtract the one from the other, and embrace an opinion, either on one
> side or the other, with that assurance which arises from the remainder.
But
> according to the principle here explained, this subtraction, with regard
to
> all popular religions, amounts to an entire annihilation; and therefore we
> may establish it as a maxim, that no human testimony can have such force
as
> to prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation for any such religion."
M.BELL
I have yet to meet a Christian who says that,
'human testimony can have such force as to
prove a miracle, and make it a just foundation
for any such religion.'
[Elf]
So then did Jesus rise from the dead or not? If not, then what is it that
you believe happened that makes worship of a corpse worthwhile?
[M.BELL]
Of course if you were the
one to experience that miracle well then....?
[Elf]
Fallacy of the Argument Ad Populum, at best. [I.e., an empty appeal to
emotion.]
If things were different then things would be different.
For that matter, how would one discern an authentic Yahweh miracle from the
trickery of the venerable Extremely Powerful Alien??
What makes a miracle a miracle?
[M.BELL]
The foundation of Christianity is not proving
miracles, but of exercising faith in Jesus Christ.
[Elf]
The question is what is it that you believe you are exercising "faith" IN? A
corpse on a stick? The Romans made probably tens of thousands of similar
corpse-on-a-sticks, why don't you exercise faith in them?
Why don't you exercise faith in the old Roman state religion? There is after
all, MUCH better attested to evidence of miracles by the Emperors than there
is for even the bare existence of Jesus, let alone that Jesus was the
Messiah.
[Moi, quoting Hume, from earlier]
> From a bit earlier on the page:
>
> "In the infancy of new religions, the wise and learned commonly esteem
the
> matter too inconsiderable to deserve their attention or regard. And when
> afterwards they would willingly detect the cheat in order to undeceive the
> deluded multitude, the season is now past, and the records and witnesses,
> which might clear up the matter, have perished beyond recovery."
M.BELL
Be an interesting discussion to demonstrate
this to be the case with the Bible and
Christianity.
[Elf]
Alas, the intellectual dishonesty of the True Christian(tm).
What then, if not the supposed resurrection "miracle" is that Paul is
referring to when he says that if it didn't happen all his preaching and all
his faith were in vain?
What's the point of the whole story, and the very idea of redemption if the
events never happened?
Why worry whether or not "on the balance of the probabilities" Jesus ever
existed?
[Moi, once more from the earlier post quoting Hume]
>
> And from a bit earlier yet:
>
> " . . . what greater temptation than to appear a missionary, a prophet,
and
> ambassador from heaven? Who would not encounter many dangers and
> difficulties, in order to attain so sublime a character? Or if, by the
help
> of vanity and a heated imagination, a man has first made a convert of
> himself, and entered into the delusion; who ever scruples to make use of
> pious frauds, in support of so holy and meritorious a cause?
> "The smallest spark may here kindle into the greatest flame; because the
> materials are always prepared for it. The avidum genus auricularum, the
> gazing populace, receive greedily, without examination, whatever sooths
> superstition, and promotes wonder.
> "How many stories of this nature have, in all ages, been detected and
> exploded in their infancy? How many more have been celebrated for a time,
> and have afterwards sunk into neglect and oblivion? Where such reports,
> therefore, fly about, the solution of the phenomenon is obvious; and we
> judge in conformity to regular experience and observation, when we account
> for it by the known and natural principles of credulity and delusion. And
> shall we, rather than have a recourse to so natural a solution, allow of a
> miraculous violation of the most established laws of nature?"
M.BELL
All Hume does here is cast aspersion.
[Elf]
What he does is point out that time after time, over and over, similar
scenarios repeatedly unfold. Whether it be L. Ron Hubbard, or David Koresh,
or the Rev. Moon or Joseph Smith or Mary Baker Eddy or Muhammad etc. etc.
etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Answer the implied question:
Why should we believe anything of importance happened 2000 years ago in
Palestine - and what was it AND HOW DO YOU KNOW???
[M.BELL]
There is no substantive
arguments against the truthfulness of Christianity or any other
religion, only his atheistic ramblings.
[Elf]
What, that's the best you can do? An Ad Hominem abusive against a dead man?
Let me state the question more clearly for you, perhaps you can trouble to
answer it:
What makes Christianity one bit different from all the other false religions
the world has seen?
You decry the importance of miracles.
Not at all the basis of your religion you say.
Evidence for Christ's existence? All we've seen is some verbal sleight of
hand "self evident" you say, when 2/3 of the world finds it not self evident
at all.
The fineness of the ethical teachings? That all of the teachings attributed
to Jesus are so fine is quite open to dispute and those which are agreed
upon are common to almost all religious traditions. There is not one ethical
teaching of any worth of Jesus which a Stoic would needed to have changed
his philosophy/religion for - indeed, since the Stoics were around first,
its rather more likely that some of their wisdom was stolen and simply put
in the mouth of the savior figure Christ by early Christians.
So once again, just why is it that we should change our default assumption
of "one more ancient myth" in regard to Christianity?
And please do better than an Ad Hominem Abusive of the dead this time.
[And Moi and David one more time]
>
> I shall close with a bit from close to the beginning of the section:
>
> "The plain consequence is (and it is a general maxim worthy of our
> attention), 'that no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle,
unless
> the testimony be of such a kind, that its falsehood would be more
> miraculous, than the fact, which it endeavors to establish; and even in
that
> case there is a mutual destruction of arguments, and the superior only
gives
> us an assurance suitable to that degree of force, which remains, after
> deducting the inferior.' When anyone tells me, that he saw a dead man
> restored to life, I immediately consider with myself, whether it be more
> probable, that this person should either deceive or be deceived, or that
the
> fact, which he relates, should really have happened. I weigh the one
miracle
> against the other; and according to the superiority, which I discover, I
> pronounce my decision, and always reject the greater miracle. If the
> falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous, than the event which
he
> relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or
> opinion."
M.BELL
All he is saying is that no miracle could
change his conceited all-knowing naturalistic
position. As the Bible quite aptly says of such.
'The fool says in their heart, There is no God'.'
[Elf]
Translation from Christian speak:
I don't have a clue how to answer that, I have no facts, no reasoning which
survives Hume's relentless logic, so I'll call him a nasty name, and try and
scare everybody with the Bible."
I.e., an Argument Ad Hominem against a dead man, spiced with an Argument Ad
Baculum.
All in all, pretty sorry stuff.
And so far, not one word of even an attempted rebuttal of Hume, let alone an
effective one. Fallacies follow fallacies where any arguments are addressed
at all.
Christianity stands convicted of being simply the particular syncretic
mystery religion which survived the turmoil of the later Roman Empire - and
nothing more. Myths and fairy tales from another time.
Perhaps some time Matthew will attempt to actually answer Hume's arguments,
but I won't hold my breath.
Michael Fisher, aka Elfish Chimera, San Diego, California
He that would make his own liberty secure, must guard even his enemy from
oppression; for if he violates this duty, he establishes a precedent that
will reach to himself.
--Thomas Paine-