Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading?

[Whateverist]

Yes, all the supernatural claims of any religion can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's are. As far as I can tell, no religion has what could reasonably be described as a 'body of evidence' for their supernatural claims. Which are their most central and important claims, because their claim to authority depends on having a supernatural source for it.


I'm not aware that this is the sort of thing that serious scholars of religion debate...if they did, I'm sure they'd have announced a winner by now.


When Christians use special pleading, they use it the same way as every other theistic religion: 'My God is the exception. My God is different. My God is unique. My God is the only explanation. Their God isn't real, my God is.' [1]

 

Christianity, of course, exists. There is ample evidence of that. If you think Christianity has special evidence for its supernatural claims that other religions do not possess, I would be interested in seeing it. If your definition of what constitutes 'more evidence' is arbitrarily picking some criteria that conveniently and arbitrarily favors Christianity, that would be some sort of fallacy, but I'm not sure it would be special pleading. I'm sure other religions would find which religion is the oldest persuasive, or which religion has the lowest body count, or which religion has the highest percentage of people willing to pierce themselves to show their faith. Whatever evidence you have that Christianity in particular is true, it should be something relevant to whether its supernatural claims are true. [2]

---

Christianity is quite unique. As are all the other religions. Of course it's different from the other religions.

But if you've got actual evidence of the supernatural, I'd like to know what it is.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't have time to address every point. But here are a few comments.

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. 
2. I am talking about the writings of 27 sources we combined into the NT as well as dozens of other surviving documents that at least attest to a part of the overall narrative. No special criteria--just the only evidence that we could ask for from that time period for the truth of the claims of Christ--people writing about things within the lifetime of witnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses. 

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. 

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.

Of course those 27 citations in the NT weren't all reported independently at the same time.  Some are virtual copies of the others.  Also, as you point out, what was edited into the NT wasn't a fluke.  Authoritative committees made those decisions in order to come up with unified, internally consistent document.  How well they achieved that can be argued, that it was contrived with a purpose cannot.

[RoadRunner79]

---

Yes, all the supernatural claims of any religion can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's are. As far as I can tell, no religion has what could reasonably be described as a 'body of evidence' for their supernatural claims. Which are their most central and important claims, because their claim to authority depends on having a supernatural source for it.


I'm not aware that this is the sort of thing that serious scholars of religion debate...if they did, I'm sure they'd have announced a winner by now.


When Christians use special pleading, they use it the same way as every other theistic religion: 'My God is the exception. My God is different. My God is unique. My God is the only explanation. Their God isn't real, my God is.' [1]

 

Christianity, of course, exists. There is ample evidence of that. If you think Christianity has special evidence for its supernatural claims that other religions do not possess, I would be interested in seeing it. If your definition of what constitutes 'more evidence' is arbitrarily picking some criteria that conveniently and arbitrarily favors Christianity, that would be some sort of fallacy, but I'm not sure it would be special pleading. I'm sure other religions would find which religion is the oldest persuasive, or which religion has the lowest body count, or which religion has the highest percentage of people willing to pierce themselves to show their faith. Whatever evidence you have that Christianity in particular is true, it should be something relevant to whether its supernatural claims are true. [2]

---

Christianity is quite unique. As are all the other religions. Of course it's different from the other religions.

But if you've got actual evidence of the supernatural, I'd like to know what it is.

---

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. I don't have time to address every point. But here are a few comments.

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. 
2. I am talking about the writings of 27 sources we combined into the NT as well as dozens of other surviving documents that at least attest to a part of the overall narrative. No special criteria--just the only evidence that we could ask for from that time period for the truth of the claims of Christ--people writing about things within the lifetime of witnesses and possible rebuttal witnesses. 

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. 

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.

There isn't special pleading, unless you are making one argument agaisnt on thing, and then countermanding that reasoning in another instance, without justification.  For instance, if you deny the testimony of another religion, or that of evolution scientist as evidence , strictly on the information being conveyed by testimony alone, and yet insist that it is evidence for Jesus.

[SteveII]

This charge comes up from time to on this forum. 

First, let's define our terms:

Special Pleading: Applying standards, principles, and/or rules to other people or circumstances, while making oneself or certain circumstances exempt from the same critical criteria, without providing adequate justification. Special pleading is often a result of strong emotional beliefs that interfere with reason. reference

Evidence: Evidence is not proof. It is a fact that supports a conclusion. For the purposes of this discussion, eyewitness testimony (from any religion) is evidence.  

Central Question: Is it true that other religions have bodies of evidence that can be examined in the same or similar way as Christianity's is and therefore are legitimate comparisons in which special pleading can actually occur?

Is there any debate that no major religion that has a fraction of the amount of evidence of Christianity to even examine in support of its main claims? If other religions do not have a body of evidence or there only exists one piece of evidence, then how could there be any special pleading in favor of Christianity? 

If you are tempted to just answer there is no evidence for Christianity, they we are just arguing definitions of words. Whatever you call the material under consideration, there is more of it under Christianity and therefore no special pleading.

Well at least you don't suggest that atheists are holding you to a higher standard for your supernatural claims than we do ourselves for various and sundry mundane claims we make ourselves.  I appreciate not having to argue that evidence for supernatural claims is going to be more demanding than for ordinary natural ones.  

I also appreciate your defining the terms as you are using them.  Nice, and the definitions seem reasonable.  

As to your question, I have no idea how good the evidence is for other religions or how well that stacks up against your own.  All I know, is I've never seen anything that has made me doubt my disbelief for any religion.  I have looked at a few but not with any interest in the evidence provided for the truth of religious claims interpreted literally.  Fundamentalism of any ilk is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Like I have said above, Christianity is a cumulative case. Not all people come to believe it from the same direction and for the same reasons.

[Amarok]

Oh fuck were going back to the historicity of the new testament again . You would think after being curve stomped on this subject a dozen times now theists on this site stop playing that card.

[Brakeman]

The Bible is the claim. Impeached evidence is no longer evidence. It is special pleading to the max.

[SteveII]

What evidence would you expect to see from events that happened in the first century? Writings. The more the better. The more names we know the better. The more immediate effects these writings had the better. The more people that believed the events even before the writings the better (for example, Paul addresses the already existing churches throughout the Roman empire in the very first surviving writings).
So yes. Quantity of the only evidence we should expect to survive (writings) is an important factor.

The more unbiased outside corroboration, the better, particularly in a region and time noted for how much was preserved by historians of the time. All the testimony seems to come from believers, which is really odd, considering all the things they're claiming happened; if they really happened. If they didn't really happen, it's not odd at all: 'Chinese whispers' and bias easily account for uncorroborated fantastic stories recorded decades after the supposed events.

There's plenty of evidence that Christians existed in the Middle East thousands of years ago and evidence of what they believed. But what you want is evidence that what they believed about supernatural events was true, right? You'd want outside corroboration from people with no skin in the game for that, right? If you had Pliny the Elder complaining about the dead people wandering Jerusalem and the sky darkening for three hours along with rock-splitting earthquakes, that would be something. That was quite a day to only be noticed by the faithful, and outside coverage of it would be evidence that something remarkable, at least, was happening. But hardcore atheists are spared trying to explain it because there's no good reason to think it happened in the first place. It's embellishment and symbology; believing it actually happened despite no outsider recording it requires more mental gymnastics than dismissing it as such.

It would be nice to have more evidence. However, there is no way to know what "third-party" evidence there was and was lost to history (what percentage of documents do you think survived the sacking of Jerusalem or even the normal hazards of the first couple of centuries?). There is no rebuttal evidence. It becomes a matter of opinion as to the weight you put on the evidence we have and what is or is not compelling. There is no proof. Most Christians believe because of a variety of reasons and not just because the first century Christian docs are unassailable proof. 

However, germane to the subject, Christians do have way more to consider in their cumulative case for their beliefs than do other religions.

---

Wait.  I'd like to add to expand on my previous post as I am thinking back on Steve's threads.

First, he tried to argue that extraordinary claims shouldn't need extraordinary evidence to be reasonably accepted.  When that approach failed, he then tried arguing that the crappy non-evidence for his extraordinary claims is actually good, reliable evidence.  After that one sank, now he's here saying that at least his religion has more crappy non-evidence than everybody else, as though bad evidence in high enough quantities somehow magically transforms itself into good evidence.  Awesome.

You confuse my motives and goals. I met both my goals to 1) explore all of your objections and to make sure I understand your arguments and 2) is to make sure I have satisfactory answers to the more intelligent responses and at least feel that my point was understood by some. Differences of opinion will always occur. Convincing any of you of anything has never been my goal. From my point of view, all of my threads have been successful. Thinking there is a loser and a winner just shows that you do not understand rational discourse nor its goals.

[Huggy Bear]

Name another religions with evidence we can compare over any time span you want. Without a comparison, we would be left with just a litany of beliefs going way back that don't add anything to the discussion.

You don't have evidence, you have hearsay.

Apparently you haven't the slightest clue of what constitutes hearsay, do yourself a favor and go sit down somewhere.

---

I don't deny anything seeing how one can be healed simply through the power of belief, even science attests to that fact...

Only the science in your dream land huggy

https://www.scientificamerican.com/artic...-the-mind/

Belief is powerful medicine, even if the treatment itself is a sham.

You were saying?

[SteveII]

One problem with this entire thread is that comparing Christianity to some other religions isn't an apple-to-apple comparison. Take Buddhism, for example. One could argue that Buddhism might be 'true' in some sense without Siddhartha Gautama ever having existed. We could posit, for the sake of argument, that he is an entirely legendary character, and this claim would in no way speak to the truth or falsehood of the teachings and practice attributed to him. You simply can't do that with Christianity without undercutting the foundations of the movement, which is based on allegedly historical events that fulfilled certain prophesies.

So for purposes of this conversation, are the Buddhist writings (or the writings of Hindu mystics) -- which dwarf the Bible -- to be considered as evidence for the claims made by those religions? I can't speak much to the question of Hindu scripture, but in the case of the Buddhist writings, we have "first hand" testimony of the efficacy of Buddha's teachings and practice by adherents who submitted themselves to the discipline and found enlightenment. It shouldn't matter that much of it was written centuries after Siddhartha allegedly lived, since Buddhism doesn't stand or fall with historical claims or even the actual existence of one man. It's the teachings and practice that matter.

No two religions would compare apples to apples because there is always going to be some defining characteristic claim. 

Regarding personal testimonies, don't you think that Christians have been writing about their experiences since the beginning? While I think both the Christian and Buddhist testimony is evidence of a changed/fulfilled life, it does not address completely the overall underlying claims of each religion. It is interesting that there are common themes in how we are to conduct ourselves found in the NT and in Buddhism.

[Whateverist]

Well at least you don't suggest that atheists are holding you to a higher standard for your supernatural claims than we do ourselves for various and sundry mundane claims we make ourselves.  I appreciate not having to argue that evidence for supernatural claims is going to be more demanding than for ordinary natural ones.  

I also appreciate your defining the terms as you are using them.  Nice, and the definitions seem reasonable.  

As to your question, I have no idea how good the evidence is for other religions or how well that stacks up against your own.  All I know, is I've never seen anything that has made me doubt my disbelief for any religion.  I have looked at a few but not with any interest in the evidence provided for the truth of religious claims interpreted literally.  Fundamentalism of any ilk is a nonstarter as far as I'm concerned.

Thanks for the thoughtful reply. Like I have said above, Christianity is a cumulative case. Not all people come to believe it from the same direction and for the same reasons.

Does anything really ride on the strength of the case you put together?  I mean for you.  For those who want to believe or start off already believing I think it must really just be about making the case for the plausibility of God existing.  You just need to smooth over the rough parts and preserve as much common sense and intellectual rigor as you can .. under the circumstances.  You have my sympathy on that.  Can't be easy.  For what it's worth, I think you do a better job than most.

[LadyForCamus]

The more unbiased outside corroboration, the better, particularly in a region and time noted for how much was preserved by historians of the time. All the testimony seems to come from believers, which is really odd, considering all the things they're claiming happened; if they really happened. If they didn't really happen, it's not odd at all: 'Chinese whispers' and bias easily account for uncorroborated fantastic stories recorded decades after the supposed events.

There's plenty of evidence that Christians existed in the Middle East thousands of years ago and evidence of what they believed. But what you want is evidence that what they believed about supernatural events was true, right? You'd want outside corroboration from people with no skin in the game for that, right? If you had Pliny the Elder complaining about the dead people wandering Jerusalem and the sky darkening for three hours along with rock-splitting earthquakes, that would be something. That was quite a day to only be noticed by the faithful, and outside coverage of it would be evidence that something remarkable, at least, was happening. But hardcore atheists are spared trying to explain it because there's no good reason to think it happened in the first place. It's embellishment and symbology; believing it actually happened despite no outsider recording it requires more mental gymnastics than dismissing it as such.

It would be nice to have more evidence. However, there is no way to know what "third-party" evidence there was and was lost to history (what percentage of documents do you think survived the sacking of Jerusalem or even the normal hazards of the first couple of centuries?). There is no rebuttal evidence. It becomes a matter of opinion as to the weight you put on the evidence we have and what is or is not compelling. There is no proof. Most Christians believe because of a variety of reasons and not just because the first century Christian docs are unassailable proof. 

However, germane to the subject, Christians do have way more to consider in their cumulative case for their beliefs than do other religions.

---

Wait.  I'd like to add to expand on my previous post as I am thinking back on Steve's threads.

First, he tried to argue that extraordinary claims shouldn't need extraordinary evidence to be reasonably accepted.  When that approach failed, he then tried arguing that the crappy non-evidence for his extraordinary claims is actually good, reliable evidence.  After that one sank, now he's here saying that at least his religion has more crappy non-evidence than everybody else, as though bad evidence in high enough quantities somehow magically transforms itself into good evidence.  Awesome.

You confuse my motives and goals. I met both my goals to 1) explore all of your objections and to make sure I understand your arguments and 2) is to make sure I have satisfactory answers to the more intelligent responses and at least feel that my point was understood by some. Differences of opinion will always occur. Convincing any of you of anything has never been my goal. From my point of view, all of my threads have been successful. Thinking there is a loser and a winner just shows that you do not understand rational discourse nor its goals.

I said nothing of winners or losers. Those are your words, not mine.  I speak to the assertions you've made regarding evidence and specifically, evidence for Christianity, and your lack of success in supporting these assertions.  Your failure to make a strong case for your position/s doesn't make me a "winner" of anything.  It simply means I can dismiss them, and not lose a minute's sleep over it.