tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post524278070519127385..comments2023-12-01T18:05:24.875-05:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Science, Biblical Criticism, and Double Standards (Sigh, Par for the Course)Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger58125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1425193757066679992009-04-06T03:18:00.000-04:002009-04-06T03:18:00.000-04:00Steven:Al,I am quite sure that you and Ellis know ...Steven:<BR/><BR/><I>Al,<BR/><BR/>I am quite sure that you and Ellis know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and pure speculation.<BR/><BR/>However, within the field of cosmology, you both seem to be having trouble distinguishing these things.</I><BR/><BR/>Is that so?<BR/><BR/><I>First off, string theory is not really a theory at this stage, it is a very elaborate hypothesis.</I><BR/><BR/>Correct. The term "string theory" is a misnomer.<BR/><BR/><I>Likewise, ideas about multiple universes are even further removed, and I consider these these ideas to be in the realm of speculation,</I><BR/><BR/>So do I and so does Ellis. Erm, so what about your point on "having trouble distinguishing these things"?<BR/><BR/><I>That being said, I challenge you to find any scientist working in these fields, that considers these ideas to be true. Not just probable, but honest to goodness true. If you can, then you can at least say that your assertion might hold in some cases, but the vast majority of scientists working in this field don't think that way, and neither do I. So your equivocation of religious faith with naturalist "faith" is clearly wrong.</I><BR/><BR/>Regardless of being probable or "honest to goodness true", Martin Rees believes in the mutliverse, see book <I>Just Six Numbers</I>. So does Suesskind, see book <I>The Cosmic Landscape</I>. <BR/><BR/>Bernard Carr was quoted as saying: "If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse." Steven Weinberg, apparently told Richard Dawkins "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."<BR/><BR/>(You don't believe me? Google it up. Hint: no, it's not just on religious websites.)<BR/><BR/>And so on.<BR/><BR/><I>The most telling thing though, is that virtually everything that your are saying was leveled against quantum theory 100 years ago.</I><BR/><BR/>With the crucial difference that the observability of quantum phenomena was never in doubt. In fact, the quantum hypothesis (now quantum theory) arose from an <I>observation</I>!<BR/><BR/>In contrast, a wider nature (multiverse or not) outside our universe lies forever outside observability because it lies outside the particle horizon (I don't know why I always have to repeat this, but apparently I do). The best hope for, at least indirect, observability might be that a putative multiverse has left an imprint on the cosmic microwave background map. But first, the evidence could probably always be interpreted in a different way, and second, there would still be no way to observe an essential prerequisite for the multiverse hypothesis to work, the idea that all universes within it have different laws of nature -- this would require direct observation.<BR/><BR/>Look, you can continue setting up strawmen (it's getttin' kinda silly though) in order to, at all costs, avoid admitting that atheism is a faith (since a wider nature or quantum field or whatever outside our own universe that could have created it can never be observed). But your constant and false evasion procedures won't change that fact: atheism is a faith. <BR/><BR/>I am done discussing this with you; if you want to come up with another evasive strawman move or otherwise have the last word, just go ahead.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-67390891493282746542009-04-05T20:18:00.000-04:002009-04-05T20:18:00.000-04:00Al,I am quite sure that you and Ellis know the dif...Al,<BR/><BR/>I am quite sure that you and Ellis know the difference between a theory, a hypothesis, and pure speculation.<BR/><BR/>However, within the field of cosmology, you both seem to be having trouble distinguishing these things. First off, string theory is not really a theory at this stage, it is a very elaborate hypothesis. Likewise, ideas about multiple universes are even further removed, and I consider these these ideas to be in the realm of speculation, perhaps approaching a real hypothesis (within the context of the string hypothesis).<BR/><BR/>That being said, I challenge you to find any scientist working in these fields, that considers these ideas to be true. Not just probable, but honest to goodness true. If you can, then you can at least say that your assertion might hold in some cases, but the vast majority of scientists working in this field don't think that way, and neither do I. So your equivocation of religious faith with naturalist "faith" is clearly wrong.<BR/><BR/>The most telling thing though, is that virtually everything that your are saying was leveled against quantum theory 100 years ago.Stevenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03009287314335622703noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-71574567804838480652009-04-05T03:25:00.000-04:002009-04-05T03:25:00.000-04:00exapologist, maybe you’re trying to diffuse the co...exapologist, maybe you’re trying to diffuse the complaints of Christians who claim we don’t believe the Bible because we have an anti-supernatural bias, but I don’t see why we should. I’ve made my case in my book for a predisposition against the supernatural. Have you read it yet? <BR/><BR/>In any case a simple question can help us here. If Christians did not approach the Bible from a MN standpoint then what could they continue to believe even if they see the problems you mention? Could they continue to believe in the verbal-plenary theory of inspiration of the infallible, not inerrant, kind? They would just become moderates, evangelical moderates. With a MN standpoint I’m going for it all. Miracles. Virgin birth. Resurrection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-89972984840732260082009-04-05T02:56:00.000-04:002009-04-05T02:56:00.000-04:00I see. There are critieria, and no double-standard...I see. There are critieria, and no double-standards?<BR/><BR/>Pure nonsense. Boyd has as many double-standards as any Muslim or Mormon.<BR/><BR/>Josephus's 'Wars of the Jews' was written with ten years of the events , by a direct participant , and he records eyewitness testimony - 'I suppose the account of it would seem to be a fable, were it not related by those that saw it'.<BR/><BR/> He is referring among other things to a heifer giving birth to a lamb in the middle of the Temple. <BR/><BR/>Does Boyd believe a cow gave birth to a lamb, in a work written within *ten* years of the event? <BR/><BR/>Surely this is just as well attested as the raising of the widow of Nain's son. <BR/><BR/>In the 'Histories' by Tacitus, he records that the Emperor Vespasian cured blindness with spittle and cured lameness. Tacitus writes ' Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.' <BR/><BR/>Does Boyd believe Tacitus's reports, based on eyewitness testimony, and attributed by him to the god Serapis? <BR/><BR/>In Mark 8:23-26, Jesus cures blindness, partly by spitting on someone's eyes. Does Boyd believe him? <BR/><BR/>In the Histories, Tacitus also records that a priest of the god Serapis, Basilides, was seen by Vespasian in the Temple, although Vespasian knew , and checked by sending horsemen to verify, that a moment earlier Basilides had been in a town some eighty miles distant.<BR/><BR/><BR/> Does Boyd believe Tacitus, reporting the eyewitness testimony of the hard-headed Emperor/Soldier Vespasian? <BR/><BR/>In Acts 8:39-40, Philip was 'caught up' (same verb as in 2 Corinthians 12 where Paul is 'caught up' into the third heaven) on the road to Gaza and reappears at Azotus.<BR/><BR/> Does Boyd believe Philip, like the pagan priest Basilides, transported from place to place like a character from Star Trek? <BR/><BR/>Ancient writers were credulous, gullible, unreliable, biased and superstitious. <BR/><BR/>Is it closed-minded to examine the idea that Christian writers may share some of these faults?<BR/><BR/> Are there any stories in the Gospels which, in Boyd's opinion, betray some of the credulity, gullibility and bias that we find in secular writers of the period, and in every single Christian writer who wrote non-canonical works?<BR/><BR/>And, of course, if we are going to use the same standards for the Book of Mormon as we use for the Koran and the New Testament we get documented evidence that all three contain plagiarism and frauds <A HREF="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" REL="nofollow">Miracles and the Book of Mormon </A><BR/><BR/>But, of course, Boyd and Eddie have to maintain that they do not have double-standards.<BR/><BR/>What else can they say? Cigarretes don't cause cancer?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-91158316912801512352009-04-04T23:04:00.000-04:002009-04-04T23:04:00.000-04:00No, Anthony, they want to keep the traditional can...No, Anthony, they want to keep the traditional canon of historical criteria, they didn't make it up. They just want to say that we can't a priori rule out the supernatural, if it passes muster on the other accepted criteria. That is where Christianity begins to move ahead.Brad Haggardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14814856985147330634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-78659364326341479692009-04-04T20:58:00.000-04:002009-04-04T20:58:00.000-04:00Brad wrote: Eddy and Boyd want to open up historic...Brad wrote: <I>Eddy and Boyd want to open up historical study to supernatural, which would be, in their words, "messier", but they aren't advocating getting rid of all criterion. That's why we don't have to be gullible to every offhand miracle account, because we can filter everything through agreed upon criteria. When we use those, (embarrassment, multiple attestation, etc.) then we see Christianity start to pull ahead of other religions.</I><BR/><BR/>So Eddy and Boyd want to define criteria to allow miracles in historical research? Isn't it interesting that only Christianity would pass muster with this new "criteria"? I'm sure that if those of other faiths were defining that criteria the miracles that would substantiate their faith would pass muster as well. But then again if you had an international congress of religious faiths attempting to define that criteria then there would be very little to agree upon or the definitions would be so general that they would be useless.Anthonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17693944542336729866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-18399292391168977582009-04-04T19:34:00.000-04:002009-04-04T19:34:00.000-04:00John, I looked at it and I had already commented o...John, I looked at it and I had already commented on that article ;-)<BR/><BR/>But here's what I think you're missing. Eddy and Boyd want to open up historical study to supernatural, which would be, in their words, "messier", but they aren't advocating getting rid of all criterion. That's why we don't have to be gullible to every offhand miracle account, because we can filter everything through agreed upon criteria. When we use those, (embarrassment, multiple attestation, etc.) then we see Christianity start to pull ahead of other religions.Brad Haggardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14814856985147330634noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-6425481907555538902009-04-04T18:12:00.000-04:002009-04-04T18:12:00.000-04:00Whether or not MN is true, I think the issue of MN...Whether or not MN is true, I think the issue of MN is a red herring in the context of biblical criticism. For the problems for an inerrantist view of scripture, and more broadly of a conservative account of the historical Jesus -- are logically independent of MN. For it's possible to grant the possibility of christian theism and its historical verification -- miracles and all -- and thus of conservative views about Scripture and the historical Jesus, and yet still think a non-conservative view of these things is a better account. So, for example, one could be a supernaturalist, and believe in the possibility of miracles and their substantiation via ordinary historical methodology (as, e.g., Craig and Habermas do), and yet think that (e.g.) the genealogies and birth narratives of Jesus conflict too much with both each other and with known historical fact to accept the hypothesis of their reliability is the best explanation of the data. In fact, plenty of Christian NT scholars do reject conservative views of the NT for just these sorts of reasons (e.g., James Dunn, Dale Allison, John Meier, etc.). Thus, it seems to me that the issue of MN in this context is a red herring. The epistemic force of non-conservative views of scripture do not rely on accepting MN.exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1598388386030390412009-04-04T18:04:00.000-04:002009-04-04T18:04:00.000-04:00This comment has been removed by the author.exapologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09915579495149582531noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-68445992353606567532009-04-04T13:05:00.000-04:002009-04-04T13:05:00.000-04:00Some of these hypothetics have me scratching my he...Some of these hypothetics have me scratching my head a bit.<BR/><BR/>I feel like someone who, after describing Einstein's gravity (General Relativity), find someone that persists in asking "well what if we could repel gravity by concentrating hard like a yogic flyer?"<BR/><BR/>The short answer is that this would be a problem, but the long answer is that this simply has never happened and this theory is immensely powerful, tested to an extreme degree and has never showed any exceptions, not for yogic flyers (and not for religious statues).<BR/><BR/>The fact that we can easily imagine exceptions doesn't mean that our theories have problems. In fact it's a strength because it means they're specific, clear, falsifiable and yet unfalsified (and therefore very close to describing reality).<BR/><BR/>So instead of pointing out holes and blindspots in MN and acting like this is a problem, understand that through centuries of concerted effort and investigation, we have not found any holes. Yes General Relativity can't "properly" investigate people who fly mentally, yes MN can't "properly" investigate miracles yet we've never found the inconclusive cases which would imply that there is a problem.<BR/><BR/>Knocking MN because it can't validate your belief in miracles seems to me to be as helpful a complaint as a yogic flyer complaining about weaknesses in GR. In both cases, the problem isn't with the investigative tools it's with the fact there doesn't seem to be any phenomenon worth investigating.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-54843735711162229532009-04-04T12:01:00.000-04:002009-04-04T12:01:00.000-04:00Steven:Al Moritz, did you read this post? This is ...Steven:<BR/><BR/><I>Al Moritz, did you read this post? This is why your equivocation of naturalism's "faith" with religious faith is wrong. This is also why your reference to Ellis misses the point.</I><BR/><BR/>You still do not understand. Ellis' point (and mine) is that you cannot apply methodological naturalism -- the method of sscience -- to things that cannot be observed, and things outside our spacetime (e.g. a wider nature that might have created our universe) cannot be observed indeed.<BR/><BR/>This has nothing to do with the Bible, methodological naturalism and the <I>observable</I> world.<BR/><BR/>And yes, my claim that atheism thus is a faith still stands.Al Moritzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17422697770654047870noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-80721919140869281842009-04-04T07:07:00.000-04:002009-04-04T07:07:00.000-04:00Methodological naturalism cannot explain miracles ...Methodological naturalism cannot explain miracles - but damn it gives us a good means to pit it against the principle of parsimony. A claim of a miracle in itself cannot be tested against, but all the means of being able to 'know' the miracle are covered. So methodological naturalism can provide us with a platform of explanation, that while we'll never truly be able to know, we will provide a platform to use the principle of parsimony.<BR/><BR/>Why go for an extraordinary claim that is beyond evidence, when we can explain just how said extraordinary claim can come about through ordinary processes that have been extensively tested? In that sense, any claim without evidence is indistinguishable from something imagined. When the same kinds of evidence used to argue for God is used to argue for the existence of aliens, you know you don't have anything worth listening to.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-8806292920869520262009-04-04T03:06:00.000-04:002009-04-04T03:06:00.000-04:00ERICFor example, to use an example Dawkins brings ...ERIC<BR/>For example, to use an example Dawkins brings up (in the Blind Watchmaker, I think), if a statue of the Virgin Mary waved at you -- it really waved, and it really was a statue -- would you conclude that a miracle had occurred...<BR/><BR/>CARR<BR/>Let us see Dawkins answer this very question, as Eric has not read the book. <BR/><BR/>From 'The Blind Watchmaker'...<BR/><BR/>'A miracle is something which happens, but which is exceedingly <BR/>surprising.If a marble statue of the Virgin Mary suddenly waved its <BR/>hand at us we should treat it as a miracle , because all our <BR/>experience and knowledge tells us that marble doesn't behave like <BR/>that.'<BR/><BR/><BR/>Dawkins goes on to explain that a natural explanation is possible, but as likely as a cow jumping over the moon.<BR/><BR/>But will Eric be persuaded by actual quotes from Dawkins?<BR/><BR/>If Dawkins says outright that a natural explanation is as likely as a cow jumping over the moon, and that we should treat it as a miracle, Eric will , to his dying day, say that atheists rule out miracles from the start.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-41461469541920790182009-04-04T02:56:00.000-04:002009-04-04T02:56:00.000-04:00The Outsider Test....My article Miracles and the B...The Outsider Test....<BR/><BR/>My article <A HREF="http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/mirc1.htm" REL="nofollow">Miracles and the Book of Mormon </A> uses exactly the same methods that Christians use when reading the Book of Mormon and the Koran.<BR/><BR/>I quote Christians applying the rules to the Book of Mormon that they refuse to use when discussing the New Testament.<BR/><BR/>Why do Christians find it obvious to use methodological naturalism when looking at other religions, so obvious that they don't even bother justifying their use of it, when they also claim that there is one religion and one religion only where the use of methodological naturalism shows bias and prejudice and can't be justified? <BR/><BR/>The phrase motes and beams comes to mind (I concede I was not the first person to come up with that analogy)Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-81286279186334072822009-04-04T02:21:00.000-04:002009-04-04T02:21:00.000-04:00Eric, if I were to point out your difficulties I w...Eric, if I were to point out your difficulties I would state them this way: 1) You are preoccupied with the possible exceptions rather than the probable rules; 2) you hold to double standards when it comes assessing religious truth claims; 3) without being able to offer an alternative method for thinking critically about similar claims. I think these things are obvious and should be noted, for when stated like this in the light of day your clandestine operation to hide these facts is exposed for what it is. You’re not really being honest with the facts. You’re not being honest with other things you know. You believe contradictory things and refuse to admit it.<BR/><BR/>Let’s face it boldly and honestly, I know of no miracle claim that can survive the test of MN, none. If you think so then bring it on. While you try and try to allow for Christian exceptions to the rule, you use this same method when assessing the miracle claims at Lourdes and find those miracle claims lacking for evidence. That’s what I’m talking about. You use the same method I do selectively and that’s a double standard. And yet MN is the ONLY method available to us!<BR/><BR/>Do you understand better? As I said you are smart, but smart people have always been able to defend unintelligent beliefs they arrived at for less than adequate reasons. <BR/><BR/>Eric’s concern is this: <I>I have no problem with starting such an investigation by assuming there's a naturalistic explanation; my problem is with ruling out, a priori, any possible supernatural explanation…</I><BR/><BR/>MN asks us to rule out any false claims. That’s the rule. We must subject all claims to skepticism and seek evidence for them. Even though I accept the rule I allow for exceptions I have stated for the record <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2007/05/what-would-convince-me-christianity-is.html" REL="nofollow">what would convince me of the miracle claims of Christianity</A>. There is plenty of things that would do that for me. So while I accept the rule I allow for exceptions. It’s just that I see no reason for allowing for any exceptions. This is consistent and critical and intellectually honest. You, on the other hand, only want to allow for CHRISTIAN exceptions. That is intellectually dishonest, in my opinion. And you cannot provide a better method for critically assessing any miracle claims or any claims for that matter. <BR/><BR/>I challenge you to tell me what I’ve already done. Tell me your method, and also tell me what would convince you to disbelieve. How do you consistently decide between miraculous claims? Also, what would be the case, what would have to obtain, for you to no longer believe? Asking this question allows me the opportunity to see what you think are the most important reasons for believing. <BR/><BR/>Finally, Eric finished by saying…<I>So, now that we know what conclusions your method will and will not allow you to consider, we have to determine if you think miracles are possible. If you do, then you cannot limit yourself to the conclusions of a method that will not allow what you concede to be a possibility; if you don't think that miracles are possible, then you'll have to explain why.</I><BR/><BR/>I don’t think any critical thinker would say that in principle miracles are impossible, unless s/he thinks it’s impossible for a God to exist. Sure they are possible. They are as possible as was Jim Carrey’s chances to get the girl of his dreams in the Movie “Dumb and Dumber.” There is overwhelming, staggering evidence that they do not happen. And this is the case even if there is a God or gods or goddesses. You are focused on a mere possibility even if it means being willing to embrace a method that, if used consistently, would open you up to many false miraculous claims, i.e. a method where "everything is fair game." You’d rather embrace such a method and suspend your critical thinking skills in other areas of life, rather than hold to your critical thinking skills across the board because this means you might miss something like a miracle. Not only do I think that is just plain wrong, inconsistent and even intellectually dishonest, but I claim that if God cannot convince us of a miracle without requiring us to suspend our critical thinking skills using a method that is rock solid, then he is impotent. Imagine your God for a moment, a God who created us with our minds, asking us to suspend those very minds in order to believe in his miraculous activity in the world. Isn’t that blatantly schizophrenic of the most intelligent being in the universe? He creates us as thinking people but demands that we suspend the way he created us so that we could be open to claims of his miracles in the world. Of course at the same time your God expects, no, demands that we use our minds not to be led astray by the false claims of other miracles which support other religions in the world. This does not make any sense to me at all, at all.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you see better what I’m speaking of in defense of methodological naturalism.<BR/><BR/>On the subject of miracles, I’m with Robert G. Ingersoll, who said: “When I say I want a miracle, I mean by that I want a good one. . . . I want to see a man with one leg, and then I want to see the other leg grow out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-58104051657525813052009-04-03T23:49:00.000-04:002009-04-03T23:49:00.000-04:00"* MN fails if a miracle happened yet it's not jus..."* MN fails if a miracle happened yet it's not just successful but almost unbelievably successful."<BR/><BR/>How does MN fail "if a miracle has happened"? That's the very question I've been asking -- how would we know MN has failed if there's always a possible naturalistic explanation (even if that explanation is the mysterian one), and if naturalistic explanations are the only ones MN allows? Hasn't the method predetermined the outcome, i.e. 'surprise! It's a natural explanation'? And if miracles are at least possible, isn't it a methodological 'no no' not to begin with, *but to limit yourself to the conclusions of*, a method that rules out, a priori, what you accept as a possibility?<BR/><BR/>"Not even you seem to be able to tell me what 'supernatural' would look like and you're its advocate!"<BR/><BR/>That's not true at all. Take my evangelizing Virgin Mary statue (and my stipulations): I'd say that would be a miracle, *even though there's a possible naturalistic explanation*. Or, take the resurrection (which differs from my statue example in this way: the statue example is a thought experiment designed to isolate the conceptual variables of natural and supernatural explanations, while the resurrection is an incident that an abductive case can, I think, adequately support).<BR/><BR/>In fact, the whole point of the statue thought experiment was to clarify whether you would, as I said MN dictates, always go with the naturalistic explanation. This seems to be the case, given your question above. Now, given this, and given the fact that there's a possible (if improbable) naturalistic explanation for any supposedly miraculous event, then it follows that your method does, a priori, preclude the possibility of miracles. <BR/><BR/>So, now that we know what conclusions your method will and will not allow you to consider, we have to determine if you think miracles are possible. If you do, then you cannot limit yourself to the conclusions of a method that will not allow what you concede to be a possibility; if you don't think that miracles are possible, then you'll have to explain why.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-75833546323804678562009-04-03T23:20:00.000-04:002009-04-03T23:20:00.000-04:00Still, this doesn't mean that it's necessarily irr...<I>Still, this doesn't mean that it's necessarily irrational to believe that a miracle has occurred (Wright's case is quite rational); rather, it means that we can never 'know' -- where knowing involves a sense of the justification requirement that can be demonstrated to others -- that a miracle has occurred.</I><BR/><BR/>Actually, given what we know I think it does mean it's irrational to believe that any specific incident was a miracle or even than a miracle has occurred.<BR/><BR/>Remember:<BR/>* MN fails if a miracle happened yet it's not just successful but almost unbelievably successful. I think that, when a discovery is announced, even dedicated theists wouldn't even pause to wonder whether MN was at the heart. Any alternative is so ludicrous as to be unthinkable. This is because naturalism is confirmed every day and in millions of ways.<BR/><BR/>* We know from countless examples that humans are not just bad observers but are prone to bad conclusions and miracle claims are only ever arguments from ignorance which we know are especially prone to errors.<BR/><BR/>* Every miracle claim which has ever been investigated has always had a natural explanation. It is possible that one may be the exception, but it is irrational to believe that one has found that exception, especially if one wants to believe.<BR/><BR/><I>Remember, I stipulated that it was a statue, and that it did in fact move. I even provided a possible, though extremely improbable, naturalistic explanation. </I><BR/><BR/>I know, and your explanation sounds like those lame explanations of people who argue that the best explanation for Jesus walking on water was a fortuitous sandbank. While it's technically possible for an egg to unfry itself if all of the molecules just happened to move in just the right way, we all know that doesn't happen and anyone who proposed this in the absence of some external controller should be justifiably ridiculed. So if we saw an egg unfry itself, what then? Is that a miracle? If someone could make eggs unfry themselves on demand and we could study them closely, microscopically, would we continue to think it was a miracle or would it just be another natural behaviour, previously unknown?<BR/><BR/>I think the latter, just as I think your moving statue would inevitably lead to a deeper understanding of the natural world.<BR/><BR/>'Cause yeah, I don't think there is a 'supernatural'. Not even you seem to be able to tell me what 'supernatural' would look like and you're its advocate!Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-20591391748138855912009-04-03T23:12:00.000-04:002009-04-03T23:12:00.000-04:00Could God explain his own supernatural acts to hum...Could God explain his own supernatural acts to humans if he wanted to? Could he explain his Godly mechanisms? Surely there is a logic to them, even if it is a sort of logic that would blow out feeble human minds. <BR/><BR/>If God could explain his supernatural acts, whatever they are, to us, would they cease to be "super" the more we saw the logic in them?<BR/><BR/>If God could not explain his supernatural acts to us humans then are his own supernatural acts incredible, bamboozeling and mysterious to even himself?Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316242988335557519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-9877543401975803242009-04-03T22:36:00.000-04:002009-04-03T22:36:00.000-04:00"I'll be blunt: no, science and MN would not concl..."I'll be blunt: no, science and MN would not conclude "miracle" or "supernatural"."<BR/><BR/>Thank you. I think it's more the case that they *could* not conclude 'miracle,' rather than 'would' not.<BR/><BR/>"what is the alternative, and why is this a bad thing?"<BR/><BR/>I'll take the last question first. If you limit your explanations to those amenable to MN, and if -- if! -- it's the case that miracles occur, then you'll be forever closed off to this truth (Why? See your answer above). Also, if we leave aside the question of whether miracles in fact occur, and merely claim that you concede the *possibility* of miracles -- I don't know if you in fact do or don't -- but you commit yourself to a method of investigation that would not (could not?) let you reach the conclusion that a miracle had occurred, then you've closed yourself off from what you believe to be possible (which is never a good idea methodologically). <BR/><BR/>In short, it's demonstrably bad if you're open to the possibility of miracles to *limit yourself* to a method of investigation -- actually, to the conclusions that such a method will permit, given its methodological constraints -- that can never reach the conclusion that a miracle has occurred. (It seems to me that this is the heart of our discussion: you take me to be claiming an alternative method of investigation, when I'm simply descrying and criticizing the problems with the method we're discussing *for this particular category of event*. We start with this method, since it has, as you've said, been enormously successful. However, we must never forget that it's a method, not a metaphysical conclusion; and we must be wary of pulling metaphysical conclusions from methods that exclude at the outset possibilities we concede at the outset.) Now, this doesn't mean that we leap to the conclusion 'miracle!' whenever we encounter a roadblock; indeed, as I said, I don't think (though I'm open to the possibility) science can ever reach the conclusion, 'A miracle has occurred.' This brings me to your other question. <BR/><BR/>Now, what's the alternative? As I said above, I'm not presenting one. But that doesn't mean there's nothing left to say here. First, we have to look at what we believe in fact obtains. If you believe that god exists, then 'miracles' are rendered more plausible. If you believe that he doesn't, then you probably don't think miracles are possible -- period. If you don't know what you believe, then you should at least be open to the possibility that god exists, and thus to the possibility of miracles. So, we first have to determine where you're coming from. (This is all very general, of course, and the discussion could be complicated in any number of ways; I'm simplifying for the sake of brevity.)<BR/><BR/>After that, as I said earlier, abduction is the best we can do. For example, N.T. Wright makes an abductive case for the resurrection; if you believe that god exists, his case will seem that much stronger (though not at all dispositive -- Muslims believe in god, but presumably repudiate Wright's arguments). Now, as I said earlier, I have no problem with starting such an investigation by assuming there's a naturalistic explanation; my problem is with ruling out, a priori, any possible supernatural explanation (which is what, it seems to me, MN does, not metaphysically, but by what it will allow to count as an explanation; which is why, as I said, you cannot limit your conclusions to the ones it can provide). And I think, using this method, we will, as you have said, demonstrate that the vast majority of all miracle claims are buncombe. However, if you're asking how we *confirm* that a miracle has occurred, then, as I said earlier, I don't think it can be done. Still, this doesn't mean that it's necessarily irrational to believe that a miracle has occurred (Wright's case is quite rational); rather, it means that we can never 'know' -- where knowing involves a sense of the justification requirement that can be demonstrated to others -- that a miracle has occurred. However, as John himself has said many times, there's not much we can 'know' in this strong sense. In short, I'd say that while we cannot know through abduction that a miracle has occurred, we can be within our rational rights in believing that one has occurred; this conclusion, however, is precluded if you begin with MN. <BR/><BR/><BR/>"As for your examples, we know of many ways to get statues to wave and to perform other illusions or tricks."<BR/><BR/>No, this misses the point of the thought experiment. Remember, I stipulated that it was a statue, and that it did in fact move. I even provided a possible, though extremely improbable, naturalistic explanation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-64477117073313032652009-04-03T22:35:00.000-04:002009-04-03T22:35:00.000-04:00I believe, similar to the late George Carlin, that...I believe, similar to the late George Carlin, that "natural" is a sort of bullshit word. Oil spills are natural. Video Games are natural.<BR/><BR/>Natural to me is all that exists. I do not see a macro-distinction there. Naturalism is the study of what exists. All the other shit is speculation about non-existant beings. Its nonsense. bullshit talk. <BR/><BR/><BR/>If God exists not only is he "natural" but he is the most natural being in existance.<BR/><BR/>The "Super" in Super-natural implies naturalism, just of a sort that we are not normally familar with. <BR/><BR/>Its all bullshit and its bad for ya. <BR/><BR/>I'll be here all week (biting Carlins stuff)folks. Thanks.Leehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16316242988335557519noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-42157511130161831372009-04-03T21:47:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:47:00.000-04:00Here's that great Chesterton quote. I believe that...<I>Here's that great Chesterton quote. </I><BR/><BR/>I believe that too. What should we learn from this?<BR/><BR/>For a start I think we must recognize that our intuitive explanations of events are likely to include the impossible and downplay the unlikely or misunderstood.<BR/><BR/>To my view, this quote gives me good reason to mistrust anyone who argues against MN or who disregards human fallibility such as you appear to be doing.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-34943657298070341332009-04-03T21:43:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:43:00.000-04:00Eric,Wouldn't it be the case that since we have a ...Eric,<BR/><BR/><I>Wouldn't it be the case that since we have a naturalistic explanation, MN would commit you to either the former explanation, or to agnosticism and the hope of a future explanation (e.g. aliens), or to a mysterian position, and preclude you from concluding that a miracle had occurred? </I><BR/><BR/>I believe I've answered this several times already in several different ways. I'll be blunt: no, science and MN would not conclude "miracle" or "supernatural".<BR/><BR/>Could you please answer the questions I've asked several times: what is the alternative, and why is this a bad thing?<BR/><BR/><BR/>As for your examples, we know of many ways to get statues to wave and to perform other illusions or tricks. How do you go about ruling these out? At what point is it ever valid to say "miracle" rather than "I don't know how it happened"? I'm reminded of the video that John posted recently about a person who saw a shaking lampshade and said "ghost", and if we used his testimony we'd always say ghost. But if we were there we may notice that "rising convection currents" is a much, much better explanation. The world is filled with people who've been tricked or are so blinded by their desire to support their faith that even when the real answer is presented they refuse to accept it. We must learn from the mistakes of others and be very careful before saying "miracle". I just want to know what you think is required.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-79876708206007103272009-04-03T21:19:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:19:00.000-04:00Here's that great Chesterton quote.<A HREF="http://books.google.com/books?id=6Y2mOMRL8HUC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=chesterton+i+can+believe+the+impossible,+but+not+the+improbable&source=bl&ots=K33GNddNIh&sig=zhJM-gGWEqu0GfHZR4e1KVSVll4&hl=en&ei=ObXWSbm_LI7ulQeGkqXODA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1" REL="nofollow">Here's</A> that great Chesterton quote.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-61456849924541374742009-04-03T21:13:00.000-04:002009-04-03T21:13:00.000-04:00Tyro, let me ask you a question to see exactly whe...Tyro, let me ask you a question to see exactly where we disagree.<BR/><BR/>Is there any case you can think of where a person investigating a miracle with the presumption of MN would conclude that a miracle had occurred? For example, to use an example Dawkins brings up (in the Blind Watchmaker, I think), if a statue of the Virgin Mary waved at you -- it really waved, and it really was a statue -- would you conclude that a miracle had occurred, or that an extremely improbable molecular event (i.e. each molecule's random motion didn't cancel out the motion of all the others, resulting in the sort of stability statues normally exhibit, but instead every molecule in the statue's arm and hand moved in one direction, and then back in the other) had occurred. This is improbable to the extreme, but it is a naturalistic explanation of an event that many would otherwise consider supernatural. We could make the case more extreme: suppose that you stood in front of the statue and implored it to persuade you that god exists, and that it promptly walked away from you, entered a bookstore, grabbed a Bible, handed it to you, and stepped back into its original position. Now, we can also explain this naturalistically, in the same way we explained the waving of the statue's hand, though this even is *far* more improbable. So, an investigation of this even that presupposed MN could present us with a naturalistic alternative -- an improbable naturalistic alternative -- to a supernatural explanation, i.e. god performed a miracle. Wouldn't it be the case that since we have a naturalistic explanation, MN would commit you to either the former explanation, or to agnosticism and the hope of a future explanation (e.g. aliens), or to a mysterian position, and preclude you from concluding that a miracle had occurred? <BR/><BR/>I'm reminded of a quote from Chesterton here (which I can only paraphrase): I can believe the impossible, but not the improbable.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-31825645638323602152009-04-03T20:38:00.000-04:002009-04-03T20:38:00.000-04:00Also, roughly forty percent of scientists agree wi...<I>Also, roughly forty percent of scientists agree with Collins, i.e. believe in a *personal* god (which is what the survey asked); if a deistic god as well had been part of the survey, I suspect the number would've risen by quite a bit (it certainly would've risen; it wouldn't have fallen).</I><BR/><BR/>I don't have the stats on hand, but a <A HREF="http://www.buffalo.edu/news/8732" REL="nofollow">survey</A> showed that 52% of all scientists said they had no religious affiliation and from what I recall this number grows significantly as we go into biologists, and grows huge as we go into the National Academy of Science members. The better a scientist you are, the less religious to the point that the number of religious drops to single digits.<BR/><BR/>It is most definitely not a plurality as you imply.<BR/><BR/><I>Also, he's in the majority when it comes to doctors (seventy plus percent, if I remember correctly), and Collins is also a Doctor.</I><BR/><BR/>Collins is a doctor, yes, and as such I don't much value his opinion. Why should we care what medical doctors believe theologically any more than we should care what barbers or dentists believe? If you want to use them as a source of expert opinion, their expertise should be relevant.<BR/><BR/>As for Collins, his fame comes from his work as an administrator of the Human Genome project (again, do we care about the opinion of administrators?); his popular fame comes from the fact that he's a scientist and a theist - a rare duck in this world.<BR/><BR/><I>I've shown a priori that any investigation of a miracle that supposes MN will settle on a naturalistic explanation; if I know this a priori, doesn't that put the lie to the notion that there's any 'real' investigation of a miracle going on?</I><BR/><BR/>No, the investigation is real. This is shown trivially by pointing to the countless examples of "miracles" which were investigated and shown to be frauds or had elegant (if unknown) scientific explanations.<BR/><BR/>Why do you think this is a bad thing? Is it just because there is no way to say "yes, a miracle happened"? Tell me how anyone could do this.<BR/><BR/>Personally I don't think there is such a thing as "supernatural". What would it look like? How do you know we haven't already found it? What's the difference between "supernatural" and the discovery of a new set of natural laws?<BR/><BR/>I think that the history of quantum mechanics is exactly what would happen - people would start with "miracle", it would change to "I don't understand, let's look closer", which would change to "It's unlike anything we knew before, but this is how it works." The only way to keep it at the "miracle" stage is to keep us ignorant.<BR/><BR/>Again, if you have any reason why this isn't the case, I'm really hoping to have my mind changed. I'm not naturally a cynic and I will leap gladly onto anything which could make me believe all this fuss over MN isn't just smoke. Please, give me some branch to hold on to, no matter how small. I've got nothing here.Adrianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08694840174170043470noreply@blogger.com