I disagree. We're completely talking past each other with the analogy so let's drop it.

Analogies are supposed to make things easier to understand right? I blame madnak for this one.


Yes. This is exactly my position.


See! We don't need an analogy, you get me perfectly!

I'm not sure what's so scary about this though. Just because something is true does not mean we're going to have good evidence for it. Does it bother you that I also don't believe there are multiple universes, even though it could be true?

No, I'm referring to NT archaeology.

Then I'm not sure how that offers support for the particulars in the NT at all. I don't see any reason to expect that a non 1st-hand account written within a generation or two after the crucifixion would do any worse when checked against the archaeological record 2,000 years later than a first hand account written just after the fact. I see plenty of reasons why it would be less accurate on the particular events that occurred though.

What would convince you that the NASA recordings -- as they stand -- are part of a world where the NASA landing didn't happen?

You're trying to side-step the hoax argument, and are moving towards "honestly wrong" testimony. If there is a room full of people who testify that they saw someone get three royals dealt to them in a row, would you believe them? I have no problem believing them. Could they all be honestly wrong? It's possible, but there's not a good way of attempting to measure how I would be able to determine that level of honest error.

I don't think it's unreasonable to disbelieve unusual claims. Disbelief is easy. You've even got madnak and Justin claiming that one should disbelieve true statements. I don't think their position is "unreasonable" (though I do find it odd that one would want to put themselves in such a mindset).

Most of what we believe about historical events is found in the written record of events, not the archaeology. Most of what we disbelieve about historical events is found when the written record of events does not correspond to the archaeology.

What do you believe about what any of the Greek philosophers said and did? Why do you believe those things?

Answer the zeroth question: Does it matter? If it doesn't matter, then it doesn't matter. But if it matters somehow that there are multiple universes, then what you believe about it likely makes a difference.

I'm not sure I understand where you're going with this. Can you expand?

I can't imagine being convinced of that. (No more than I can imagine being convinced I don't know my own name.) Of course, I CAN imagine coming to believe that NASA staged the moon landing. (This is an important distinction.) I just can't imagine being "convinced by evidence."

I'm not trying to "side-step" anything. Christianity did not arise from a hoax. This is true, and anyone who suggests otherwise has an impossible burden of proof.

But stretch your mind. Can you imagine any evidence that would convince you that the NT authors were honestly wrong about the resurrection? (I don't want to elaborate on what I would mean by saying the NT authors were "honestly wrong". You can fill that in as you like.)

It depends. Disbelief in the unusual claims of religion is obviously not easy, since ~85% of the world fails to disbelieve.

Odd compared to what? The mindset of the average American? The mindset of the average Hindu? The mindset of the average schizophrenic? What do you mean?

There are plenty of questions out there where the answer simply doesn't matter. I'll use the Buddha example. Does it make much difference whether he stopped rampaging elephants? As best as I can tell, the answer to that question is without consequence. I can believe it, or not believe it, and as best as I can figure, nothing will change.

The same is true of a multiple universe hypothesis. I can believe it, or not believe it, and nothing changes.

Compare this to Christianity, which does make a claim of consequence. It matters whether Jesus was raised from the dead or if the whole thing is some gigantic misunderstanding. If Jesus was resurrected, then it's evidence that God is who he claims to be in the Bible, and this has implications both now and upon our death. If Jesus were not resurrected, then Christianity is false, and no implications can be drawn beyond that.

Again, let's be perfectly explicit. There is no chance that Christianity arose from a "misunderstanding." It was not a hoax, and not a misunderstanding. Such suggestions are laughable.

Edit - hint: it's a religion. Always has been, always will be.

The window of opportunity for evidence on the contrary has basically passed. If contemporary evidence pointed to a body being a tomb, and that body being identified as Jesus' tomb existed, that would strongly imply that the resurrection case is false. However, as much as it has been studied, nobody has found evidence in that direction. If someone made such a claim today, it would have to face a huge amount of scrutiny to believe that it's legitimate, and it would be exceedingly difficult to image it passing.

You're creating a larger category, and by doing so changing the standard. It's easy to disbelieve any particular claim, but in broad strokes, it's quite hard not to believe *something* about *something.* Under the broad categories, I could say that the remaining 15% fails to disbelieve in the falsity of all religions.

Odd compared to my desire to know what is true. To me, it's odd to acknowledge that something is true, yet simultaneously choose to actively believe it's false.

If it's not possible for there to have been a "misunderstanding" then what could you possibly mean by "honestly wrong" when they say that they saw and touched Jesus in the flesh?

I might have to ask you to define "religion" since this is not a particularly helpful hint.

I mean the NT is a sincere expression of its authors' world. This world did not have clear lines between emotion and perception; interpretation and fact; symbol and referent, etc.

Because such lines are part of reality, the NT authors were wrong. But Scripture remains an honest picture of their world. (And some of its imagery is timeless. "In the beginning was the Word; and the Word was with God; and the Word was God." Has the mysterious unity of meaning and being ever been stated more beautifully?)

I'll define it by example: Hinduism, Christianity, Buddhism, Islam, Jainism, Shintoism, Wicca, Zoroastrianism...

While true, this is incomplete. We are fairly quick to trust written records that are clearly non-fictional (speaking solely of the intent of the authors, so the Bible is included in this category regardless of my personal opinions) when it comes to where certain peoples lived, who their leaders were, what wars were fought where and why, etc. until archaeology suggests we should do otherwise.

Where they make claims about specific events and/or specific individuals we typically go through a more thorough process of investigation before accepting them as likely. Is there a corroborating source for the same information? Is it a first-hand account? Is there an independent confirmation that the author witnessed the event? How common/likely was this event to take place given what we know about the period and setting? Does the author have any motive to exaggerate, lie, or otherwise alter the story?


This is why we can accept that Cyrus conquered most of the middle east, that he had great palaces erected, and that he feasted to excess on a daily basis without necessarily believing that every kingdom he marched on greeted him as a liberator or that he was master of the universe simply because they are proclaimed in the same document.

Similarly we can think it likely that Croesus probably experienced the death of a young son on a hunting trip without giving the same courtesy to the notion that he was killed by a magical boar or that the oracle predicted all of it.

Ok this is an interesting topic, but before we move to it, I want to clarify one thing from the discussion we've been having.

Do you think that the position that there are event claims which we should believe are false because of their unlikelihood or our terrible proximity to the event in question (space or time), even if the event is true? I don't even need you to admit that it's the best position or most rational, just that it's reasonable.


Did you misspeak here? No one is acknowledging an event is true and then believing it is false. We are saying that if it were true, we'd have no way of knowing and that more likely it is false.

There is a Jewish scholar whose name I cannot remember that is only referenced one time in *ANY* contemporaneous writings, but is fully believed to have existed and there is little doubt that the sayings that are attributed to him are in fact his.

I submit to you that "courtesy" is more a reflection of what you've already concluded about the event than anything specific about the event itself.

I don't think I ever denied reasonability. In fact, I can quote myself:

...

This is what you said was your position:

Am I mischaracterizing my characterization of that quote?

But even you admit that the the vast majority of miracles that are reported didn't happen. So it starts out as an underdog to be true. To become a favorite the evidence must be overwhelming. Surely you agree with that.

Put another way, it isn't just that miracles are unlikely. It is also that claims of miracles are plentiful. I may never have made that point clear before.

Ok good. So back to whether the fact in question matters. The problem with the resurrection is that in order to believe it matters, you must first believe that it happened. If it didn't happen, it doesn't matter. This gets us nowhere if we start from a default position of unbelief (not disbelief).

To take this a step further, if you admit my position is reasonable, then you must admit that a reasonable person can hold the position that the resurrection did not happen. I don't remember your specific beliefs on what happens after we die, but if you're someone who believes that unbelievers go to hell after they die, you must believe that God sends some people to hell that have used a reasonable standard to justify their unbelief.

A little bit. That quote has nothing to do with acknowledging that something IS true and then not believing it. It has to do with acknowledging that something could be true but saying there is no evidence that could actually convince me of that.

I do believe people who hold "reasonable beliefs" might not make it to heaven. (Edit: I also believe that people who hold "unreasonable beliefs" might make it to heaven.) Man does not "qualify" himself before God in any way based on his ability to reason. The Kingdom of God is not the sole possession of those who "think well."

Also, it's important to note that what is "reasonable" is a function of what is *assumed*.

We must differ on the interpretation of "one should believe something that is false" and "EVEN IF IT'S TRUE." The latter is an explicit acknowledgment that something IS true, and the former is an explicit direction about believing the opposite.

Hey, don't you guys go losing me in this thread.
If I go to a friends for bridge and each of us picks up a complete suit for our hand. a) it could be TRUE that it was the result of a random deal.
b) I should believe it is False that it is a random deal.( it's actual truth in not relevant).
Isn't that it in a nutshell?

Yes.

The claim of "raised from the dead" is a hypothesis, which occupies a different sort of space from a fact.

This is a great discussion and I don't want to enter into it too much because it's so interesting to read. I just wanted to go back and get this at this point and make a comment:

If someone comes to you and tells you this happened, that they were dealt three straight flushes in a row, would you believe them? Regardless of what they suspect, on what do you base your belief or rejection that the event actually occurred?

If a miracle happens to you, something completely impossible by the laws of Physics, will you, or should you, believe it?

No one is reported to have seen Jesus' body disappear. If a person did see Him die, and then encountered Him alive, should that person, themselves, have believed it?

And, if you yourself experience a miracle and believe your experience, will that make it more likely you will accept the testimony of others who have had same?

I'm not actually looking for answers, I just wanted to ask the questions so you might think about the fact that it's really a binary system - it happens or it doesn't. The thing happening is not subject to probability - either the guy got those straight flushes or he didn't.

No. And on Bayes' theorem. The likelihood that they are lying or have been tricked is much higher than the likelihood that they have actually been dealt three straight flushes in a row.

Well, that presents a special case. But I'd doubt my senses, yes.

They should have had considerable doubts, and should have suspected trickery.

Yes, if I observe a miracle, then the general likelihood of miracles goes up.

But my consideration of whether it happened is independent of the fact itself, and is based solely on my observations.