Historical Jesus, Biblical Jesus

[possibletarian]

When you start with a belief in a supernatural that can effectively do anything then of course that sounds like a reasonable explanation for anything that you currently have no natural explanation for.  It also allows you to accept claims that would otherwise sound highly improbable because nothing is out of the question any more and it becomes self-reinforcing.  Belief without evidence poisons your mind and short-circuits critical thinking skills.  It is frankly fascinating to see how badly it can trap even intelligent people.

As I said before, you are not being rational, you are rationalizing and it is incredibly sad.

I found this an interesting article on this subject.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/gb/blog/...l-the-time

[Dānu]

It is the NT that distinguished my reasoning from other religions.

I would like to interject with actual reason: other than "Jesus is love", there is nothing of substance in the NT. Paul does his job of being really crazy, but do we really want him representing the religion?

That which is good in the Bible is not original; that which is original is not good.

Steve has previously suggested that Paul introduced humanity to the concept that humans have inherent self-worth, and that this concept was not already well represented in society.  It's an audacious claim, but not one toward which one cannot find any support.  That doesn't necessarily mean it's true, but only that it needs to be assessed on its own merits.  Additional questions are relevant, even if one accepts that the claim may be largely true, such as whether that indicates the influence of the divine upon Paul.  I don't think that it does.  Anyway, probably sufficient material there for its own thread.  Perhaps Steve will put the question.

If anyone wants to view that prior discussion, they may do so, here.

[Mark]

Falsification is the test to determine whether something is scientific. Statements and theories that are not falsifiable are simply not scientific statements. The very definition of God (as supernatural) makes it clear that this is not a scientific statement.

Good point.  Of course statements made in relation to ill defined entities such as  'the supernatural' resist application of true or false.  It can be true that you hold such a belief but entirely indeterminate whether you are right to do so.

So, it would seem you are engaging in special pleading--testimony is not evidence only when religion is the subject.

I think that personal experience can definitely be sufficient to justify personal belief and it plays a big role in values clarification.  However when it comes to persuading others to adopt your belief, it only succeeds if the other party finds empathy for your personal testimony enough to identify within themselves the basis for the same pre-existing even if unrecognized belief.  However it has no power to persuade those not already holding the same belief.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Falsification is the test to determine whether something is scientific. Statements and theories that are not falsifiable are simply not scientific statements. The very definition of God (as supernatural) makes it clear that this is not a scientific statement.

Good point.  Of course statements made in relation to ill defined entities such as  'the supernatural' resist application of true or false.  It can be true that you hold such a belief but entirely indeterminate whether you are right to do so.

Actually the point that falsification determines whether a claim is scientific is blatant bullshit he's trying to pull to support his other bullshit arguments. If I claim that I had dinner at Old Chicago on Oct. 12th. paying with a credit card, that is in no way a scientific claim. It is easily falsified, though.

[Kim]

There are most likely countless stories ubattributed to correct identities, only to be appropriated or simply lost in the mists of time. One has to wonder just how many historical Jesus' there may have been.

Of course, when referring to Biblical Jesus ... there can be only one.

[Mark]

Falsification is the test to determine whether something is scientific. Statements and theories that are not falsifiable are simply not scientific statements. The very definition of God (as supernatural) makes it clear that this is not a scientific statement.

Good point.  Of course statements made in relation to ill defined entities such as  'the supernatural' resist application of true or false.  It can be true that you hold such a belief but entirely indeterminate whether you are right to do so.

Actually the point that falsification determines whether a claim is scientific is blatant bullshit he's trying to pull to support his other bullshit arguments. If I claim that I had dinner at Old Chicago on Oct. 12th. paying with a credit card, that is in no way a scientific claim. It is easily falsified, though.

But in that example, Old Chicago is part of the natural world and therefore your story could at least potentially be verified.  If your claim had been concerning the 'supernatural' whatever that turns out to be, I can't begin to imagine how that could be verified.

[Dancefortwo]

Good point.  Of course statements made in relation to ill defined entities such as  'the supernatural' resist application of true or false.  It can be true that you hold such a belief but entirely indeterminate whether you are right to do so.

Actually the point that falsification determines whether a claim is scientific is blatant bullshit he's trying to pull to support his other bullshit arguments. If I claim that I had dinner at Old Chicago on Oct. 12th. paying with a credit card, that is in no way a scientific claim. It is easily falsified, though.

But in that example, Old Chicago is part of the natural world and therefore your story could at least potentially be verified.  If your claim had been concerning the 'supernatural' whatever that turns out to be, I can't begin to imagine how that could be verified.

Steve's god is as unfalsifiable as invisible Garden Fairies. But if he claims, as he has all along, that his god has a direct effect on the universe then that is testable and falsifiable.   He claims his god made the universe, was the driving force in it's formation, made all the material in it but somehow can't be  detected.  Curiously, a  god that doesn't exist is undectable, untestable and unfalsifiable.

[Mark]

Steve's god is as unfalsifiable as invisible Garden Fairies. But if he claims, as he has all along, that his god has a direct effect on the universe then that is testable and falsifiable.   He claims his god made the universe, was the driving force in it's formation, made all the material in it but somehow can't be  detected.  Curiously, a  god that doesn't exist is undectable, untestable and unfalsifiable.

Hard to imagine how you'd falsify that claim if we don't know the kinds of action that God is supposed to be capable of and how that would set it apart from natural occurrences.  If it turns out the God's actions so far are precisely mimic whatever it is we find evidence for then I don't think we can falsify any such claim.  We can go on thinking it is a silly and inconsequential claim however.

[Bucky Ball]

Historians of culture know where the concept of the "value of an individual" arose in the West. It was a complex and long process.
It had nothing to do with Paul. At all. It's actually a huge topic, in a number of fields. Paul was an Apocalyptic Jew, and had THOSE cultural values.
In Hebrew culture, we know that the tribal values where family/tribe were what drove the culture changed after the family groups
(where "immortality" consisted in male heirs), were severely disrupted during the periods when the Babylonians and Assyrians conquered the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah.) The reason the Bible was assembled in the first place, and presented to the nation by Ezra, (as recounted in the Book of Nehemiah), who came back from exile with two things : a letter from Artaxerxes that gave Nehemiah the right to rule in his name, AND the Torah of Moses ... the first time the first 4 books of the Bible were ever mentioned in human history ... and the REASON Artaxerxes sent them back with the Torah of Moses, was he needed a law code to replace the old tribal legal system, to serve as a "national history". Individualism arose concurrently in Greece, and we know the cultures communicated with each other, as the Greeks were invading the Levant. The reason the Hebrews BECAME "monotheistic" (which they were not before), was that as individualism was becoming the norm, and with that came ONE god.

[SteveII]

I just figured out the problem. Your rebuttal to my historical evidence is scientific evidence. It does not follow that then I have to have scientific evidence--because central to the claims of the NT is the existence of the supernatural--which--by definition--is not scientific nor open to scientific examination. Demanding scientific evidence is a category error.

Speaking of circular, you cannot assume the existence of the supernatural to guard the miracles of the bible as the miracles of the bible, and any other miracles you bring to the table, are being put forward as evidence for the very supernatural things you have assumed might exist.  That's simple question begging.  Interestingly enough, on another forum, we have had a discussion as to whether science can testify to the supernatural.  I've argued with you on the point that if empirical evidence cannot establish supernatural conclusion, then you're shit outta luck, because that's all that you really can appeal to there.  Whether the supernatural can be studied by science is an open question, and this is not necessarily a category error.  But more broadly speaking, when people speak of scientific evidence, they mean things that can be established by way of empirical facts.  First, it seems that this is exactly what you are doing with your inductive argument, and so you would be hoist on your own petard.  And second, I don't see that your claimed privileged status of the supernatural is necessarily true.  Prove to me that anything--anything at all--is an effect of nature and not of supernatural causes.  I look forward to your proof.

We don't have to assume the existence of the supernatural. All that is needed is being open to the possibility of the supernatural. At the core of philosophy of science is the principle of methodological naturalism--which is appropriate. That does not commit us to metaphysical naturalism. To simply deny that knowledge of the supernatural cannot be acquired through reason,/miracles/personal experiences leads toward logical positivism. It is the task of metaphysics and philosophy to determine whether there is a supernatural component of reality.
do use empirical (as in sensory derived) facts, but the analysis of the facts is different. You can start with methodological naturalism to see if any naturalistic explanation is reasonable. If the answer is indeterminate, I say we are justified in asking further questions.

Regarding your challenge, I think that is related to the understanding that even scientific knowledge is provisional--as in science does not prove anything. But just like the chicken was justified in thinking the farmer would always feed him, we are justified in thinking our intuitions are right about reality.

[JesseB]

The supernatural cannot "be tested or verified" but it can be demonstrated by observing its effects within the proper context that increases the probability that the supernatural in involved. This is logically airtight inductive process. You can deny that I have no such reliable examples--you cannot deny that it can be done.

The bolded bit is pretty much the definition of an oxymoron.  If it's logically airtight, it's not inductive.  If it's inductive, it's not logically airtight.

^ Can we be friends?

[SteveII]

But I do have good reasons to accept Paul's word. I find the entire NT content and message compelling (subjective). I find that it accurately describes man's condition and the prescription for that condition is effective.

This is an unbelievably weak inference.  You find the message compelling likely because you believe the message, which would make your appeal here rather circular.  There is no way to show that the message is in any sense qualitatively superior to any other observations on human nature such as the Analects of Confucius or the Tao Te Ching of Laozi.  This is an argument that is little more than the plea of the adulating fan.  The Muslims make similar arguments about the Quran, yet I suspect you don't swallow those whole, either.  "Oh my word, Justin Bieber is absolutely the best!" does not lead to the conclusion that Justin Bieber is God, supernatural, or any of the other things you seem to be claiming based on this.  It's horseshit.

For what it's worth, I read the Tao Te Ching cover to cover in one night at the age of 17 and converted at once because of the stunningly accurate message about my human experience that it contained.  Would you then accept that the 17 year old me had evidence that the Tao Te Ching cannot have a natural and mundane origin?

The first two sentences are not logically connected (no therefore). They are different reasons. I would pull back to the longer list I gave to illustrate a plausible, complete worldview--which the last two sentences were reflecting on.

[JesseB]

But I do have good reasons to accept Paul's word. I find the entire NT content and message compelling (subjective). I find that it accurately describes man's condition and the prescription for that condition is effective.

This is an unbelievably weak inference.  You find the message compelling likely because you believe the message, which would make your appeal here rather circular.  There is no way to show that the message is in any sense qualitatively superior to any other observations on human nature such as the Analects of Confucius or the Tao Te Ching of Laozi.  This is an argument that is little more than the plea of the adulating fan.  The Muslims make similar arguments about the Quran, yet I suspect you don't swallow those whole, either.  "Oh my word, Justin Bieber is absolutely the best!" does not lead to the conclusion that Justin Bieber is God, supernatural, or any of the other things you seem to be claiming based on this.  It's horseshit.

For what it's worth, I read the Tao Te Ching cover to cover in one night at the age of 17 and converted at once because of the stunningly accurate message about my human experience that it contained.  Would you then accept that the 17 year old me had evidence that the Tao Te Ching cannot have a natural and mundane origin?

The first two sentences are not logically connected (no therefore). They are different reasons. I would pull back to the longer list I gave to illustrate a plausible, complete worldview--which the last two sentences were reflecting on.

Not logically connected? Saying you've made a very weak inference because you find the message compelling simply for the reason you already believe it in the first place, leaving you open for errors such as circular reasoning?

It's the very definition of confirmation bias. Kinda pointed it out for you so you can correct it. Sounds like someone did you a solid you probably don't deserve....

[SteveII]

The supernatural cannot "be tested or verified" but it can be demonstrated by observing its effects within the proper context that increases the probability that the supernatural in involved. This is logically airtight inductive process. You can deny that I have no such reliable examples--you cannot deny that it can be done.

The bolded bit is pretty much the definition of an oxymoron.  If it's logically airtight, it's not inductive.  If it's inductive, it's not logically airtight.

Okay, I meant the process is logically sound and not the conclusion. I will be clearer in the future.

[JesseB]

The supernatural cannot "be tested or verified" but it can be demonstrated by observing its effects within the proper context that increases the probability that the supernatural in involved. This is logically airtight inductive process. You can deny that I have no such reliable examples--you cannot deny that it can be done.

The bolded bit is pretty much the definition of an oxymoron.  If it's logically airtight, it's not inductive.  If it's inductive, it's not logically airtight.

Okay, I meant the process is logically sound and not the conclusion. I will be clearer in the future.

I mean, sure. I'll give you that (I kinda disagree but for the sake of this post, I'll give you that), so the process is logically sound, not the conclusion. So..... you just admitted defeat of this argument?

Remember if any part of the argument fails, then the argument fails, and if it's the conclusion that fails and you already know it...... :   why are you wasting everyone's time then?

[Dānu]

I just figured out the problem. Your rebuttal to my historical evidence is scientific evidence. It does not follow that then I have to have scientific evidence--because central to the claims of the NT is the existence of the supernatural--which--by definition--is not scientific nor open to scientific examination. Demanding scientific evidence is a category error.

Speaking of circular, you cannot assume the existence of the supernatural to guard the miracles of the bible as the miracles of the bible, and any other miracles you bring to the table, are being put forward as evidence for the very supernatural things you have assumed might exist.  That's simple question begging.  Interestingly enough, on another forum, we have had a discussion as to whether science can testify to the supernatural.  I've argued with you on the point that if empirical evidence cannot establish supernatural conclusion, then you're shit outta luck, because that's all that you really can appeal to there.  Whether the supernatural can be studied by science is an open question, and this is not necessarily a category error.  But more broadly speaking, when people speak of scientific evidence, they mean things that can be established by way of empirical facts.  First, it seems that this is exactly what you are doing with your inductive argument, and so you would be hoist on your own petard.  And second, I don't see that your claimed privileged status of the supernatural is necessarily true.  Prove to me that anything--anything at all--is an effect of nature and not of supernatural causes.  I look forward to your proof.

We don't have to assume the existence of the supernatural. All that is needed is being open to the possibility of the supernatural. At the core of philosophy of science is the principle of methodological naturalism--which is appropriate. That does not commit us to metaphysical naturalism. To simply deny that knowledge of the supernatural cannot be acquired through reason,/miracles/personal experiences leads toward logical positivism. It is the task of metaphysics and philosophy to determine whether there is a supernatural component of reality.
do use empirical (as in sensory derived) facts, but the analysis of the facts is different. You can start with methodological naturalism to see if any naturalistic explanation is reasonable. If the answer is indeterminate, I say we are justified in asking further questions.

Regarding your challenge, I think that is related to the understanding that even scientific knowledge is provisional--as in science does not prove anything. But just like the chicken was justified in thinking the farmer would always feed him, we are justified in thinking our intuitions are right about reality.

As to the first, you didn't really answer the point. Aside from empirical facts, the only thing that would lead us to the postulate of the supernatural is a priori reasoning, and I don't think you can get there from here, as it were. For reasons previously explored, regarding the indeterminate relation between a material or empirically detectable effect and a supernatural cause, you can't arrive at the conclusion that the supernatural exists that way either. (And no, I don't agree the examples of Jesus' healings, preceded by pronouncements of such, successfully surmounts this obstacle. At the very least, you've never made it clear exactly how that would surmount that obstacle.) So, failing that, the supernatural is basically a postulated ontological category with no positive characteristics, as far as I've seen (some possibles do exist), and for which we can neither demonstrate nor reason to its existence. You're welcome to suggest its possibility, but until you add some positive attributes to it, that's a hollow maneuver as the supernatural becomes indistinguishable from an infinite class of similar ontological categories for which we have no exemplars. It seems the only purpose the suggestion of the supernatural serves is as a one-size-fits-all gap filler for apologetic arguments defending religion. That's about as empty an idea as they come.

As to your second response, that's one of the most cowardly things you could have said. You didn't provide a substantive reply because any substantive reply gets you in hot water and causes havoc for your beliefs and arguments. You're not fooling anyone here, Steve, and I frankly feel embarrassed for you. The emperor truly has no clothes. Would you like to try again, only this time with a serious and honest response to the challenge, instead of this deflection? I think, no, I know you can do better than this. And no, we're not justified in thinking our intuitions are reliable predictors of reality. I presume that you are talking about reformed epistemology, and loosely analogizing the sensus divinitatis with an intuition that the supernatural exists. Some intuitions are more reliable than others. A doctor's intuitions about a diagnosis have a legitimate basis and track record, and if needed, can be backed by rational justification. The only backing that intuitions about gods and the supernatural have appears to be circular, and, in practice, those intuitions have been shown to be unreliable (there is a vast corpus of scientific and psychological literature on the subject, as well as a lot of historical and non-professional literature documenting that fact). So while your chicken example is cute, it doesn't hold up to scrutiny, even on the most superficial level.

(And no, denying that the supernatural can be approached through reason or empiricism doesn't necessarily lead to logical positivism, so you can put that arrow back in your apologetical quiver. As I've suggested here, a priori reasoning and empirical facts themselves strongly encourage us to reject the supernatural.)

ETA: For my benefit, would you please clarify how you differentiate between that which is supernatural and that which is unexplained, on any level.

[unfogged]

But just like the chicken was justified in thinking the farmer would always feed him, we are justified in thinking our intuitions are right about reality.

You can't possibly be serious with that. Our intuitions about things that we experience on a regular basis may be trustworthy. Our intuitions about infinities and the creation of universes and other thing that we have not experienced are wholly unsupported and not at all trustworthy. There is simply no comparison between the two and claiming there is is just laughable.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

Good point.  Of course statements made in relation to ill defined entities such as  'the supernatural' resist application of true or false.  It can be true that you hold such a belief but entirely indeterminate whether you are right to do so.

Actually the point that falsification determines whether a claim is scientific is blatant bullshit he's trying to pull to support his other bullshit arguments. If I claim that I had dinner at Old Chicago on Oct. 12th. paying with a credit card, that is in no way a scientific claim. It is easily falsified, though.

But in that example, Old Chicago is part of the natural world and therefore your story could at least potentially be verified.  If your claim had been concerning the 'supernatural' whatever that turns out to be, I can't begin to imagine how that could be verified.

But that's not my point. My point is that there are a vast array of claims that are very falsifiable that are not scientific claims, despite Steve's adamant argument to the contrary.

You are simply rephrasing the falsification principle--which is simply the difference between what is a scientific question and a non-scientific question.

(my bold)

[Mark]

Actually the point that falsification determines whether a claim is scientific is blatant bullshit he's trying to pull to support his other bullshit arguments. If I claim that I had dinner at Old Chicago on Oct. 12th. paying with a credit card, that is in no way a scientific claim. It is easily falsified, though.

But in that example, Old Chicago is part of the natural world and therefore your story could at least potentially be verified.  If your claim had been concerning the 'supernatural' whatever that turns out to be, I can't begin to imagine how that could be verified.

But that's not my point. My point is that there are a vast array of claims that are very falsifiable that are not scientific claims, despite Steve's adamant argument to the contrary.

You are simply rephrasing the falsification principle--which is simply the difference between what is a scientific question and a non-scientific question.

(my bold)

While some nonscientific propositions are falsifiable, their being so is not required so far as I know the way those of science are.  Or maybe I'm not thinking clearly about this.  If someone makes a moral claim or states what they think is the most important thing to teach ones kids, I don't think lack of falsifiability disqualifies those kinds of claims.  Even if there is no way to falsify my claim that Cat's Cradle is the best of Kurt Vonnegut's novels, that doesn't make me doubt my claim.

It may be true that no one should expect an argument to convince all fair minded, educated people to agree unless falsifiability is possible, but I doubt that that applies to the humanities in general.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

But in that example, Old Chicago is part of the natural world and therefore your story could at least potentially be verified.  If your claim had been concerning the 'supernatural' whatever that turns out to be, I can't begin to imagine how that could be verified.

But that's not my point. My point is that there are a vast array of claims that are very falsifiable that are not scientific claims, despite Steve's adamant argument to the contrary.

You are simply rephrasing the falsification principle--which is simply the difference between what is a scientific question and a non-scientific question.

(my bold)

While some nonscientific propositions are falsifiable, their being so is not required so far as I know the way those of science are.  Or maybe I'm not thinking clearly about this.  If someone makes a moral claim or states what they think is the most important thing to teach ones kids, I don't think lack of falsifiability disqualifies those kinds of claims.  Even if there is no way to falsify my claim that Cat's Cradle is the best of Kurt Vonnegut's novels, that doesn't make me doubt my claim.

It may be true that no one should expect an argument to convince all fair minded, educated people to agree unless falsifiability is possible, but I doubt that that applies to the humanities in general.

His claim, from the most generous reading of his posts, is that any claim that is falsifiable is inherently scientific, therefor precluded from arguments against his points because he's not arguing a scientific position. That's what I'm arguing against.

[Mark]

His claim, from the most generous reading of his posts, is that any claim that is falsifiable is inherently scientific, therefor precluded from arguments against his points because he's not arguing a scientific position. That's what I'm arguing against.

That's fair.  Bottom line, if it isn't science and if I can't accept his premises, the argument isn't going move me - science or no science.

[JesseB]

Actually the point that falsification determines whether a claim is scientific is blatant bullshit he's trying to pull to support his other bullshit arguments. If I claim that I had dinner at Old Chicago on Oct. 12th. paying with a credit card, that is in no way a scientific claim. It is easily falsified, though.

But in that example, Old Chicago is part of the natural world and therefore your story could at least potentially be verified.  If your claim had been concerning the 'supernatural' whatever that turns out to be, I can't begin to imagine how that could be verified.

But that's not my point. My point is that there are a vast array of claims that are very falsifiable that are not scientific claims, despite Steve's adamant argument to the contrary.

You are simply rephrasing the falsification principle--which is simply the difference between what is a scientific question and a non-scientific question.

(my bold)

I find it funny that @SteveII who seems to have no substantive understanding of what science is, or how it is properly applied, thinks he's qualified to tell everyone the difference between a "scientific" question and a "non-scientific" question. More so since he consistently attempts to use science (incorrectly) to back up his "non-scientific" claims. I mean for real it is so laughable it could be a Monty Python sketch.

[TheGentlemanBastard]

But in that example, Old Chicago is part of the natural world and therefore your story could at least potentially be verified.  If your claim had been concerning the 'supernatural' whatever that turns out to be, I can't begin to imagine how that could be verified.

But that's not my point. My point is that there are a vast array of claims that are very falsifiable that are not scientific claims, despite Steve's adamant argument to the contrary.

You are simply rephrasing the falsification principle--which is simply the difference between what is a scientific question and a non-scientific question.

(my bold)

I find it funny that @SteveII who seems to have no substantive understanding of what science is, or how it is properly applied, thinks he's qualified to tell everyone the difference between a "scientific" question and a "non-scientific" question. More so since he consistently attempts to use science (incorrectly) to back up his "non-scientific" claims. I mean for real it is so laughable it could be a Monty Python sketch.

Absolutely. If I thought he'd actually take the time, and read them with a truly open mind, I'd recommend some books to him. Considering the level of ignorance of science he display's in these threads, though, I don't think he's cracked a science text since high school and that only with great reluctance.

Kalam, Pascal's Wager, and all the other tripe the theist spew at us may sound good to them, and they may be good arguments to keep the faithful filling the coffers, but to anyone who has even a layman's understanding of science, they are really bad arguments.

[JesseB]

But that's not my point. My point is that there are a vast array of claims that are very falsifiable that are not scientific claims, despite Steve's adamant argument to the contrary.

(my bold)

I find it funny that @SteveII who seems to have no substantive understanding of what science is, or how it is properly applied, thinks he's qualified to tell everyone the difference between a "scientific" question and a "non-scientific" question. More so since he consistently attempts to use science (incorrectly) to back up his "non-scientific" claims. I mean for real it is so laughable it could be a Monty Python sketch.

Absolutely. If I thought he'd actually take the time, and read them with a truly open mind, I'd recommend some books to him. Considering the level of ignorance of science he display's in these threads, though, I don't think he's cracked a science text since high school and that only with great reluctance.

Kalam, Pascal's Wager, and all the other tripe the theist spew at us may sound good to them, and they may be good arguments to keep the faithful filling the coffers, but to anyone who has even a layman's understanding of science, they are really bad arguments.

I would even go so far as to say it is more a result in a fundamental lack of critical thinking skills developed when one learns about science and less about understanding the scientific methodologies or results themselves.

From what I can tell he thinks critical thinking is synonymous with scientism.

[Bucky Ball]

But just like the chicken was justified in thinking the farmer would always feed him, we are justified in thinking our intuitions are right about reality.

110 % not true. 
In fact the opposite is true. 
Relativity, Uncertainty, Quantum Mechanics .... all non-intuitive.