In a message dated 05/01/01 21:55:23 GMT Standard Time, ccogan@telepath.com
writes:
> Chris
> So the situation (as far as evidence for the existence and exploits of
> Jesus) is worse even than I would have thought. I'm *still* surprised at
> what pitiful bits and pieces Christian apologists are willing to take as
> proof or at least "really strong evidence" of the existence of, and
> especially the truth of the stories about, Jesus. Nowhere else in
> historiography would such stuff be considered serious proof of miraculous
> events, but Christians take, and want us to take, these tiny bits of
> dubious data as proof not only of mere journalistic claims (such as "Jesus
> *appeared* to perform miracles") but of an entire *metaphysical* system,
> including a bizarrely deranged and malevolent God, a cast of supernatural
> characters and beings that no one has ever knowingly met (how would you
> know whether what you were meeting was one of these beings or something
> else?), and that, all in all, make about as much sense -- less, actually
-- > than "Jabberwocky."Paul Robson: Actually, they want to cheat. What you will find quite commonly is that claims like "there are lots of references to Jesus" (most of these references are actually to "Christians" not Jesus, only Josephus refers to Jesus, and refer to "Christ" in passing. Actually, Suetonius refers to Christ[o]s not Christ[u]s). Allowing for the exaggeration, there are a few references to Jesus that we can't ignore.
But only the existence, and this is where many theists cheat. They kind of let go by implication that these claims support their view of Jesus, whereas they do no such thing. Most of them are only copying from apologetics books so it's not their fault, really. They think the McDowell's of the world are honest and reliable.
Chris: > Stephen Jones wants me to view this stuff "without prejudice." Fine: I > apply to it exactly the same principles and standards I apply to > *everything*. But, you know what? My meta-principle still keeps saying, > If an epistemological method can seemingly prove each of two mutually > incompatible propositions, even when used correctly, then that method, > as it stands, is unsound.
Paul Robson: Any non-prejudicial review of the "evidence" is going to conclude that there is virtually nothing outside the theistic base (the Bible). This isn't much use, so apologists use arguments from silence (Why did no-one produce the body if there wasn't an empty tomb ? is one that always puzzled me) and try to prop up the "historicity" of the gospel stories.
Of course (as with Steve Jones) arguments from silence are only allowable for theistic arguments ;-)
Chris: > The relevance here is obvious. If bits and dregs like the quotes of > Josephus can prove the historicity of Jesus, his alleged exploits, and the > existence of God, then, using the same standards that would have to be used > to make that possible, we could *also* prove a mass of propositions that > are logically incompatible with these propositions. Therefore, on the > assumption that no incredible new rules of inference have been found that > would in fact uniquely justify these conclusions on the basis of the > evidence, I reject the kind of thinking that would allow these conclusions > to be based on such slim evidence.
Paul Robson; Yep. The common conclusion, even amongst atheists, was that there was "a" Jesus, but not "the" Jesus.
Apologists can't tell the difference, usually ;-)
Chris: [snip] > but logic is logic, here as in mathematics, physics, and philosophy > generally. All that's needed is that Jones and/or others lay out their > facts and then argue *rationally* from those facts to their conclusions. I > take the existence of the Josephus quote as real, and, for the sake of > argument, I will even accept that he thought that what he was saying was > true, etc.
Paul Robson: This is a pretty minority view, as far as I know. The interpolation mysteriously appeared with Eusebius ; Church Fathers who used Josephus before this did not quote it in their arguments (doubtless Jones would say that was because the historicity is a given !). Also, Josephus was a Jew, and remained one (Jones is the only person I have read who suggested he converted) as far as I am aware.
Chris: > No, Stephen, et al: This argument is too weak to be taken seriously, and > the reasoning involved is such that, were it applied to other similar > information, we could just as well seemingly prove that Jesus did *not* > exist, that Allah *and* Quetzalcoatl *do* exist, and so on.
Paul Robson: Stephen et al are not aware that they are "open minded" in precisely one direction ; that of anything that supports their prior beliefs.
I have noticed that theists are not able to (apparently) understand that most of their apologetic arguments work perfectly well if you cross out Jesus and write Allah in (e.g. the ever popular first cause) ; or perhaps they do, which would explain some of the special case pleading.
(Which you will see written as something like, well the Qu'ran must be wrong because it is the work of Satan)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Jan 06 2001 - 13:18:30 EST