(September 12, 2017 at 9:33 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:Quote:1. It would only be special pleading if there was no justification for the Christian belief. I think that the significant amount of information available in the NT make a better case by far than most religions have. With this justification, there is no special pleading.
It would only be special pleading if you expect what Christians have to present to be treated differently than what other theists have to present. That the information in the NT makes a better case is your opinion, and so far it hasn't failed to be convincing to atheists because of how poorly it stacks up to other religions, but because it fails to be convincing entirely on its own merits. Most of us are equally skeptical of other religions, the paranormal, alien visitors, or cryptids. It's not like our standards of evidence are inconsistent. No amount of testimony, in itself, is going to convince me of alien abductions, Bigfoot, or ghosts. What is presented for the supernatural claims of Christianity, in order to be convincing, needs to be of the caliber that would convince me of the same of another religion, alien abductions, Bigfoot, or ghosts. I'm not really familiar with your complaint of specifically Christian special pleading accusations; all I've noticed that could be described as special pleading is the usual generic theist stuff (something caused the universe, and that something is the God of Christianity).
SteveII Wrote:The statements "Christianity is true" and "there is more evidence for Christianity than any other religion" are independent of each other (a belief on one does not have an impact on the other). This discussion is on the latter.
Since no one doubts the existence of your religion, please be more specific about what it is you are claiming is true. I'm guessing you mean ' the miraculous events described in the books that were determined to be canonical to the NT actually happened'. Christianity can be correct on a variety of mundane matters without that also being true. You could mean 'the Bible is literally true and inerrant', which is not something all Christian sects believe. You could just mean 'the God of Christianity is real, but not every jot and tittle of the Bible literally true'. [2] From my point of view, you're claiming 'there is more unreliable evidence for Christianity than any other religion'. [3] That's an assertion, I don't know if it's true or not. If you were a Zoroastrian, I imagine you'd consider a religion happening to start in a period where much of history is known and literacy was fairly common, to be a pretty arbitrary standard.
SteveII Wrote:Lastly (and generally), the case for Christianity does not rest on one aspect (i.e. unassailable 1st century documentation). It is and always will be a cumulative case with many aspects (natural theology, message content, predisposed to the supernatural, historicity of Christ, morality, personal experience, influence of others). We are discussing one aspect and how it compares to other religions.
It might be better to focus on those other things, then. I think we've established pretty clearly that 'we have more testimonials' isn't considered awfully impressive around here. [4]
1. Good point. However, special pleading does not mean you have to treat everything the same or even everything in a category the same. All you need is justification for treating it differently. For example, if you are impressed with your uncle's life-altering conversion and you you believe him as to the cause, reconsidering the NT as compelling is not special pleading (as compared to the skepticism reserved for alien abductions, Bigfoot, or ghosts). The actual evidence for the NT didn't change one bit, but your justification did.
2. For the purposes of this discussion (and not heading down any rabbit trails) I believe the basic claims in the NT surrounding the life and death of Jesus Christ. I believe Paul was who he said he was. I believe that most of the epistles are what they appear to be.
3. If my father came from Jerusalem with some others to start the church in Galatia and I were the recipient of Paul's letter in 50 something AD, would I be justified in considering the Paul's letters "reliable"? I certainly think so. So what is it the that would have made them reliable to the recipient but not to me today? I think the most you are justified in saying is that to find the information of the NT compelling is a matter of opinion.
4. Perhaps. But my argument is not if Christianity is compelling, but what is the atheist justified in charging the Christian with.
