Debate with a Christian

[discipulus]

I think some spend a couple minutes perusing the various writings of internet "infidels" and conclude Jesus never existed based on these writings.

I'm just wondering why they even care. I mean, whether there existed an actual man that the stories of the bible are based upon seems like such a trivial topic.

The mainline atheist response would be something to the effect:

!!!!Religion is dangerous!!!!

Many no doubt see themselves as valiant warriors against the social ills fostered by those who are religious.

[Mudhammam]

I'm just wondering why they even care. I mean, whether there existed an actual man that the stories of the bible are based upon seems like such a trivial topic.

The mainline atheist response would be something to the effect:

!!!!Religion is dangerous!!!!

Many no doubt see themselves as valiant warriors against the social ills fostered by those who are religious.

Shouldn't we all see ourselves that way, especially Christians?

---

Guys, empiricism is self-refuting because you cannot empirically demonstrate that other minds and thoughts exist.. so maybe ghosts and zombies who love us and live hidden inside us are like that... And can be real too...


Um. No. Try harder.

Empiricism is the theory of knowledge which states that in order for a proposition (P) to be taken as true, it must be subject to verification via empirical means.

Decades ago philosophers came to realize that Empiricism is far too restrictive a theory of knowledge and even more so, is demonstrably self refuting. The proposition, "In order for a proposition (P) to be taken as true, it must be subject to verification via empirical means" is itself not subject to verification via empirical means, and thus fails to meet its own criteria and refutes itself.

Now the concepts I keep having to teach you are things learned in first year philosophy. This material is not exceptionally difficult to learn and is in fact foundational to more advanced concepts in philosophy of science.

Now either you just do not know these things or you do and are not using the knowledge you possess to come up with anything substantial.

Which is it?

You fail to grasp the distinction between objectivity and subjective experience, and moreover what is required in public discourse to elevate a claim from subjective opinion to verifiable fact or piece of knowledge.

[Esquilax]

Decades ago philosophers came to realize that Empiricism is far too restrictive a theory of knowledge and even more so, is demonstrably self refuting. The proposition, "In order for a proposition (P) to be taken as true, it must be subject to verification via empirical means" is itself not subject to verification via empirical means, and thus fails to meet its own criteria and refutes itself.

So, do you guys remember the first time Disc posted this nonsense? Do you also happen to remember when I refuted it, and showed that his example proposition could indeed be verified empirically?

Because I do. I remember that real well.

So, to begin with, I'm going to toss out the idea of absolute certainty and total verification because that's a useless concept. But in terms of things having empirical justification, it's trivial; propositions supported by empirical data are, by definition, more rational to take as true by definition, as opposed to things that aren't. The latter leads to contradictions, whereas the former cannot; eventually, additional empirical evidence will always erase contradictory conclusions. If you take things as true without empirical justification, you have no way of determining whether or not they are true in any objective sense, and thus discarding any one non-empirical claim over another is... well, unjustified.

So, you've got one internally consistent method, which hosts no contradictions, and you have another which can not only play host to contradictions, but also offer no means to resolve those contradictions that is not, itself, equally unverified.

In this way, we have empirically demonstrated that it is more reasonable to accept claims as true based on empirical evidence, and entirely unreasonable to accept claims as true without empirical evidence. Therefore, Disc's "unverifiable" proposition has been verified empirically.

If Disc wishes to rebut this, I invite him to first, without recourse to empirical evidence, demonstrate which of the statements "Jesus is god," and "Jesus is merely a prophet of god," is true, and which is false. Stripped of empirical evidence, neither claim is any more compelling than the other; how do you determine which is true?

[*Deidre*]

Just some very simple questions for you, discipulus; why do you believe in God? Why do you believe the Jesus story in the Bible?

What motivates you to adhere to Christianity over say, other religions?

[Mudhammam]

Here's a question Disc should try to solve using his methodology:
A person claims to see a ghost that says in a Fatherly voice, "All ghosts are red."
Another person claims to see a ghost that says in a Fatherly voice, "All ghosts are blue."
What color are ghosts really?

[*Deidre*]

I'm just wondering why they even care. I mean, whether there existed an actual man that the stories of the bible are based upon seems like such a trivial topic.

The mainline atheist response would be something to the effect:

!!!!Religion is dangerous!!!!

Many no doubt see themselves as valiant warriors against the social ills fostered by those who are religious.

Religion isn't dangerous if it stays contained. A person desiring to worship a Deity through his/her place of worship or alone is fine so long as that same person doesn't try to thrust his/her religious views on those who are not interested in following said religion.

But, religion can be dangerous when it grows in numbers and becomes a lobbyist, bribing politicians to vote a particular way.

Oh wait, that happens every day in the US!

You know what the irony of this is? Jesus, if you believe the story in the NT, was the quintessential Socialist and against organized religion.

Oh, the irony.

---

I think some spend a couple minutes perusing the various writings of internet "infidels" and conclude Jesus never existed based on these writings.

I'm just wondering why they even care. I mean, whether there existed an actual man that the stories of the bible are based upon seems like such a trivial topic.

Why should we care about anyone being mentioned as an integral part of history?

[discipulus]

If Disc wishes to rebut this, I invite him to first, without recourse to empirical evidence, demonstrate which of the statements "Jesus is god," and "Jesus is merely a prophet of god," is true, and which is false. Stripped of empirical evidence, neither claim is any more compelling than the other; how do you determine which is true?

I am not at all against using empirical evidence to determine the veracity of a truth claim where empirical evidence is expected to be present.

I do not expect empirical evidence to exist for historical accounts of anything that happened 2,000 years ago because what happened 2,000 years ago is beyond the scope of observation and experimentation.

I do not throw my hands up and say, "My goodness! I cannot know anything about what happened 2,000 years ago because I cannot verify any historical claims or accounts empirically!"

If historians thought like you do, then historiography would be impossible Esquilax. Any endeavor to provide an account about what happened in the past would be rendered futile a priori.

Do you understand this Esquilax?

No?

Let me give you a simple illustration to show you why your thinking and reasoning are wrong.

Suppose you were living during the time that Nero was Emperor and you and your family witnessed first hand the great fire that ravaged a great portion of Rome during that time. The fire destroyed your home and you had to start all over from scratch with just the clothes on your back.

Now suppose you die and when you die, you discover you are not bound by time but can see in an instant what life is like in the year 2014. You see the triumphs of man as he flies into outer space and you see the numerous inventions man has created over the years since you were alive, you see the fire trucks that you wish had existed when your house was burning and all you had at your disposable was a wooden bucket full of water. You see the marvels of computers and you see people using the internet and you decide that you want to enter this time period and engage with some people who were responsible for recording the events of the past. You want to see what they had to say about that great and dreadful fire that changed not only your life, but the lives of thousands who lived during the time you did.

So you enter into time and you decide to go to one of the most prestigious universities in the United States of America. You walk in and head to where you think the History wing would be hoping to speak with some of the history professors there, and to your astonishment........

There is no history department at all!!!!!!!

You marvel at this and then see an old professor meandering through the halls with his google glasses on and ask him with great concern:

"Sir, where is your history department?"

The old professor looks at you with mild amusement and says:

"Son, we have no history department."

"Why in the world is that?" You ask.

"Where have you been son, under a rock?" The crotchety old professor snaps.

"History, bah! History is for ignorant, uneducated souls. Ever since the rise of verificationism, any endeavor at historiography has been looked upon as simply a waste of time. We cannot know what happened in the past. Since past events are not subject to verification via empirical means, we cannot say what happened in the past. All we have is the "now" my son."

Flabbergasted, you start stuttering,

"But, but, but the fire, the fire, the great fire that destroyed my home, that destroyed my life, that destroyed a great portion of that great city Rome! What about that, have you not heard of that? And, and, and Nero, surely you have heard of him, how he blamed it on those pesky Christians who were running around talking about how we should love one another, surely you have that written in a book somewhere?"

The professor looks at you sadly and says,

"Son, we burned all the history books, there are no more........when the verificationist movement gained momentum, they stopped at nothing, but destroyed every historical document, all of it is gone. They simply saw them all as being wastes of space, since what was written within those books could not be verified by empirical means......they considered them useless."

Now in anger you let loose with one last dejected cry:

"But it happened, I swear it all happened, it really did! I am not lying, I was there!!!"

The professor laughs and as he walks away leaving you crying all alone in the hall. Pausing, he turns and says:

"Son, if you need help dealing with reality, we have classes that might be of some benefit. Check them out some time."

He then walks on down the hall and into his classroom.

Through clenched teeth, you too walk down the hall, muttering and cursing under your breath:

"How could they do it! How could they say those things never happened! They are so stupid!!!"



***


This would be a nightmare, and thankfully verificationism has been long dead. But the above illustrates what would happen if it was utilized the way you seem to imply it should.


You see my friend, all that you are saying "sounds" good. You sit behind your computer and say things like "We should use empirical this and we should use empirical that". It all sounds intelligent and smart, but no serious academic would actually suggest we utilize such a restrictive theory of knowledge. That is why verificationism died out in the late 60's.

Do you understand this?

[shep]

You see my friend, all that you are saying "sounds" good. You sit behind your computer and say things like "We should use empirical this and we should use empirical that". It all sounds intelligent and smart, but no serious academic would actually suggest we utilize such a restrictive theory of knowledge. That is why verificationism died out in the late 60's.

BIB: why on earth shouldn't we, at least it is testable, demonstrable and real? At least its something, isnt it?

[*Deidre*]

If Disc wishes to rebut this, I invite him to first, without recourse to empirical evidence, demonstrate which of the statements "Jesus is god," and "Jesus is merely a prophet of god," is true, and which is false. Stripped of empirical evidence, neither claim is any more compelling than the other; how do you determine which is true?

I am not at all against using empirical evidence to determine the veracity of a truth claim where empirical evidence is expected to be present.

I do not expect empirical evidence to exist for historical accounts of anything that happened 2,000 years ago because what happened 2,000 years ago is beyond the scope of observation and experimentation.

I do not throw my hands up and say, "My goodness! I cannot know anything about what happened 2,000 years ago because I cannot verify any historical claims or accounts empirically!"

If historians thought like you do, then historiography would be impossible Esquilax. Any endeavor to provide an account about what happened in the past would be rendered futile a priori.

Do you understand this Esquilax?

No?

Let me give you a simple illustration to show you why your thinking and reasoning are wrong.

Suppose you were living during the time that Nero was Emperor and you and your family witnessed first hand the great fire that ravaged a great portion of Rome during that time. The fire destroyed your home and you had to start all over from scratch with just the clothes on your back.

Now suppose you die and when you die, you discover you are not bound by time but can see in an instant what life is like in the year 2014. You see the triumphs of man as he flies into outer space and you see the numerous inventions man has created over the years since you were alive, you see the fire trucks that you wish had existed when your house was burning and all you had at your disposable was a wooden bucket full of water. You see the marvels of computers and you see people using the internet and you decide that you want to enter this time period and engage with some people who were responsible for recording the events of the past. You want to see what they had to say about that great and dreadful fire that changed not only your life, but the lives of thousands who lived during the time you did.

So you enter into time and you decide to go to one of the most prestigious universities in the United States of America. You walk in and head to where you think the History wing would be hoping to speak with some of the history professors there, and to your astonishment........

There is no history department at all!!!!!!!

You marvel at this and then see an old professor meandering through the halls with his google glasses on and ask him with great concern:

"Sir, where is your history department?"

The old professor looks at you with mild amusement and says:

"Son, we have no history department."

"Why in the world is that?" You ask.

"Where have you been son, under a rock?" The crotchety old professor snaps.

"History, bah! History is for ignorant, uneducated souls. Ever since the rise of verificationism, any endeavor at historiography has been looked upon as simply a waste of time. We cannot know what happened in the past. Since past events are not subject to verification via empirical means, we cannot say what happened in the past. All we have is the "now" my son."

Flabbergasted, you start stuttering,

"But, but, but the fire, the fire, the great fire that destroyed my home, that destroyed my life, that destroyed a great portion of that great city Rome! What about that, have you not heard of that? And, and, and Nero, surely you have heard of him, how he blamed it on those pesky Christians who were running around talking about how we should love one another, surely you have that written in a book somewhere?"

The professor looks at you sadly and says,

"Son, we burned all the history books, there are no more........when the verificationist movement gained momentum, they stopped at nothing, but destroyed every historical document, all of it is gone. They simply saw them all as being wastes of space, since what was written within those books could not be verified by empirical means......they considered them useless."

Now in anger you let loose with one last dejected cry:

"But it happened, I swear it all happened, it really did! I am not lying, I was there!!!"

The professor laughs and as he walks away leaving you crying all alone in the hall. Pausing, he turns and says:

"Son, if you need help dealing with reality, we have classes that might be of some benefit. Check them out some time."

He then walks on down the hall and into his classroom.

Through clenched teeth, you too walk down the hall, muttering and cursing under your breath:

"How could they do it! How could they say those things never happened! They are so stupid!!!"



***


This would be a nightmare, and thankfully verificationism has been long dead. But the above illustrates what would happen if it was utilized the way you seem to imply it should.


You see my friend, all that you are saying "sounds" good. You sit behind your computer and say things like "We should use empirical this and we should use empirical that". It all sounds intelligent and smart, but no serious academic would actually suggest we utilize such a restrictive theory of knowledge. That is why verificationism died out in the late 60's.

Do you understand this?

Fortunately, most of us don't live in hypotheticals. ;-)

[discipulus]

You see my friend, all that you are saying "sounds" good. You sit behind your computer and say things like "We should use empirical this and we should use empirical that". It all sounds intelligent and smart, but no serious academic would actually suggest we utilize such a restrictive theory of knowledge. That is why verificationism died out in the late 60's.

BIB: why on earth shouldn't we, at least it is testable, demonstrable and real? At least its something, isnt it?

We should use it. I do not know if you saw what I wrote at the beginning of my post from which the above was taken.

We should use empirical means and methods in matters that are subject to observation and experimentation.

We should. I have said this over and over.

But to take verificationism and empiricism and to try and extrapolate it over into other domains and disciplines of research is simply unjustified. That is why the verificationist movement died out years ago. If it had been adopted, it would have compelled us to abandon wide swaths of what most of us take to be fields of human knowledge.

Those who espoused such a limiting and restrictive theory of knowledge did so for various reasons. Many saw it as a way to once and for all silence those who sought to speak about the supernatural or God, or other like topics. But unbeknownst to them at the time was that in their endeavor to eliminate all theological statements, they also rendered many scientific statements as worthless at the same time! They essentially were throwing the baby out with the bath water! For example, contemporary physics is filled with metaphysical statements that cannot be empirically verified. Eminent philosopher of science Bas van Fraassen remarks about these concepts when he states: “Do the concepts of the Trinity [and] the soul…baffle you? They pale beside the unimaginable otherness of closed space-times, event-horizons, EPR correlations, and bootstrap models.” -Bas van Frassen in Images of Science, ed. by P. Churchland and C. Hooker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), p. 258.

Verificationism was abandoned by those in the academy primarily because, and ironically because it was too restrictive a theory of knowledge when it came to science itself!!!

---

Fortunately, most of us don't live in hypotheticals. ;-)

Fortunately, we do not live in a world where empiricism is seen as the "be all and end all."