Debate with a Christian

[*Deidre*]

Your response in no way either undercuts or rebuts my assertion that certainty is an impossible standard to meet and therefore an unreasonable expectation to have regarding the demonstration of the existence of God.

Nor was it intended to since I would never argue that claim. But unless I misunderstood your assertion that "certainty is an impossible standard to meet which actually serves to support my argument," in no way does our fallibility lead credence to any claims of the supernatural. Isn't the debate here whether or not Christianity is reasonable on the grounds that the Bible is trustworthy history or something like that? I read the discussion over absolutely certainty as largely irrelevant though I agree that you are correct here and Deidre was clumsy in her wording (I figured what she meant to say).

You seem to think that our debate is going to be revolving around a topic that is subject to the scientific method. Clearly this is incorrect. We are dealing with the accounts of historical events, i.e non-repeatable events that happened at some point in the past and not subject to direct observation and experimentation and therefore attempting to argue that we must extrapolate scientific methodology onto historiography is simply unjustified. Historiographers do not use the scientific method to determine whether or not historical accounts are reliable my friend which is what it seems to me that you are implying we should do.

True but it doesn't mean we need to suspend the broader use of scientific thinking which demands a critical review of the evidence, even if all we're able to deal with are the narratives themselves. We need more than simply the author's testimony or some hearsay by others. If not, then the Gospels are really no more special than a number of other works from the ancient world in which miraculous claims are treated as fact alongside lesser significant details since corroborated by archaeology and other writings.

When you dismiss anecdotal testimony as an "unreliable source for determining the deeper principle underlying the specific claims", it is clear that you are treating this matter with the scientific method in mind, not the historical method. This is indicative of a misconstrual of the historical method and such an understanding is simply incorrect.

Absolutely not and that's what doesn't set Christianity apart. There are literally tons of claims that parallel those in the Bible found in other texts. You don't even need to go to the ancient world to find them. In fact, I'm reading a book about NDEs right now and some people have apparently died within the past 40 years, only to be revived on their own two-three days later. Should we treat this by your definition of "the historical method" and say, "oh well, if there are people who witnessed this then the event must have occurred exactly as they interpreted it and portrayed it to us." What a fun-filled crazy world that would be. Yet if you were to read this book on NDEs 2,000 years from now and apply this uncritical method which by we trust every claim made by every person(s) in the book (which presumably you do in the case of the Bible), you would have a deeply distorted view of the facts.

Historians rely on anecdotal testimony quite frequently in determining the reliability of historical accounts. In fact, an anecdote is “the narration of a singular event,” a historeme or “the smallest minimal unit of the historiographic fact.” - From Joel Fineman's work published in The New Historicism, Ed. H. Aram Veeser(New York and London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 49-76, p. 56.

And so how many historians believe Jesus resurrected from the dead who are also not evangelists or theologians?

So it is clear from the above that you misconstrue not only the nature of an anecdote but how it correlates with respect to the historical methods of investigation utilized by contemporary historians. You dismiss the gospel accounts based on the fact that they are anecdotal testimony, a point which you have not even proven, but not only that, you incorrectly reason that therefore, these accounts are not reliable. This conclusion as I have demonstrated is simply incorrect.

So where exactly do UFOs fit into your methodology which fails to account for all the work done in the past 100 years? You know, I mean the work regarding physics, biology, psychology, physiology, neuroscience, etc., all of which clearly demonstrates that the brain is prone to irrational thinking, "patternity," cognitive dissonance, and other strange phenomena that explain ALL the abnormal experiences people have far better than your leap of unreasonable faith into the arms of Jesus or Yahweh or whatever it is you think the Trinity means.

What in the world is "reasonable certainty" intended to signify? In the case of syllogisms, nothing like "reasonable certainty" (how that is different from "certainty" has yet to be demonstrated by you) is even attempted.

Our belief in other minds, physical objects, things we touch, feel, taste--we say with "reasonable certainty" that these things are real--that is, I'm reasonably certain that these things exist and can be examined to the point that they are fully understood and at least understood better than they are now. Some things less accessible to our common experiences may also fit this term, such as various historical narratives and the most thoroughly vindicated theories of science--the Big Bang, evolution, the laws of gravity, etc. But again, historical narratives must not be all entirely accurate or entirely false. We weigh the specific nature of the claims against the background of the culture, the reasoning methods utilized at the time, etc. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.

Rather, in a philosophical argument for the existence of God, the premises are sought to be shown to be more plausible than their negation. If this is achieved and the conclusion follows from the premises by the rules of logic then the argument is proven, but nothing like reasonable certainty is required here.

You mean conclusions are couched into the premises through semantics and other games theological philosophers like to play. Don't worry about reasonable certainty being required here, nothing is ever actually accomplished through these.

In fact, moving from absolute certainty to "more plausible" or "more probable" helps me a great deal. It justifiably relieves me of the burden of having to do the impossible i.e. prove God exists with certainty!

Okay, granted.

You are right. Christianity cannot be proven to be true with certainty.

Or reasonable certainty. Or plausibility. Or probability.

Does it follow that therefore all other faiths pass my "critique"? Not at all! At most what follows is that no religious truth claims can be proven with certainty, but this in no way discourages me! For what secular truth claims can be proven with certainty???????

Well unfortunately, you've the set bar higher than Christianity can reach.

What can you prove to be true with certainty Pickup_shonuff?

Are you purposely trying to lead us down this rabbit hole again?

Just because I cannot demonstrate to you that Christianity is true with certainty, it does not follow that I must accept all religious truth claims as true!!! Nor does it follow that Jesus did not rise bodily from the dead on the Sunday morning following His crucifixion. Nor does it follow that God does not exist.

Again, never asked for absolute certainty. I asked for reasonable certainty, by which I meant probable cause. You can't offer even this because all you have are the wildly unsubstantiated claims of Jesus' pals. But no one cares about their ancient interpretation of different brain states and other phenomena that the disciples were neither skeptical nor inquisitive in understanding more deeply. Even today, when so much about the world is understood, people still don't give a shit to understand what's really going on. The disciples lived in a period of time that was much less rational and far more prone to deception, not to mention 90% of the population, including most of them, were illiterate.

You make the same mistake as others here have when you equate certainty with knowledge.

*face palm*

What he/she should have said is that there is not any experiential or experimental evidence that demands attribution to God,

There does not need to be. Science has no place in this discussion. We are talking about historical method, not scientific method.

Actually we're talking about gullibility, in which you think the historical method leaves room open for dragons, orcs, and fairies.

It seems to me you do not understand how the historical method and the scientific method differ. Nor does it seem to me that you are aware that each discipline operates in its own specific domain.

Question: How large do historians believe Christianity grew to be by the end of the first-century? Certainly (reasonably so), if a supernatural phenomenon truly occurred that was fundamentally different from the woo-woo we can discredit through science today, the figures must be incredible. If not, this works against their authenticity. In contrast, the scientific method revolutionized the globe within 100-150 years. God can certainly match man's achievements though, right?