Heh. I am totally kidding, here, obviously. I was just wondering if that was what you were looking for. You seem at times to be on a mission to “prove” how wrong Christianity is, and I wasn't sure of your motive. I am glad that you clairified that your not trying to prove christianity invalid.
Heh. Oh, I don't really think anything is "invalid" per se....
1.“Some things are a matter of faith, and some things are a matter of evidence.” I agree, but we run into kind of a dichotomy. You obviously know the difference between “idealism” and “materialism.” Well, the problem with materialism is that if you need material evidence before you believe anything, then you won’t believe anything. Some people claim to be O.K. with that. So, if you were to ask me for material evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus existed as a human being, sorry, I can’t provide that to date.
It isn't really a problem for me, as I am not a materialist. Nor is the scientific method, strictly speaking, materialistically-oriented (although some may like to think so). We use "non-material" evidence and proofs all the time --- just look at the advanced and complex "mental" evidence found in the likes of mathematics and physics. Similar evidence is also relied upon in sociology, psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and so on --- all of these fields are sciences and use the scientific method as a basis for their truth-claims. I refer you to the Kuhnian formula for the scientific method that I posted in the Evolution thread (injunction, datum, and validation).
I personally hold the materialistic or reductionistic position to be unworkable in the end. But, that's just me.
So, it must mean itÂ’s not true?
No, of course not. Lack of proof is not proof of lack. We don't currently have evidence of the existence of parallel universes --- that doesn't completely exclude the possibility.
At the same time, however, there are certain situations in which there is an
overwhelming lack of evidence when we should have, well,
something. Take, for example, a hypothetical claim that Australian Pygmies had, at one time, industrial technology --- now, there is clearly
no evidence for this claim. Which isn't necessarily a problem in and of itself. The problem, per se, is that we should have
some evidence left behind that the Pygmies used industrial technology --- a factory, or car, or gun, or something. But, instead, we are left with nothing --- which points to (although does not "prove) certain conclusions.
I believe the case of the historical Jesus is a similar situation. I believe there
should be evidence of some kind for his existence and, given everything else we know concerning Christianity at the time, I feel this is very damaging to the hisoricist position.
So, it must mean it’s not true? Well, the problem isn’t with the “Jesus story”; it’s really with any ancient history. We have very little material evidence to prove that anything happened THE WAY we believe it happened. For example, we know that the Civil war happened. But, do we know with material evidence WHY it really happened beyond reasonable doubt? No, we don’t. We only have theories, which may be based off of material evidence, but our ideals play a role when deciding which theory to believe. Now, the Civil war was only 140 years or so ago, yet there has been a ton of scholarly work done to try to decipher the “whys” and "hows" of the Civil war; if material evidence could solve all the puzzles, then there wouldn’t be anything to theorize on.
Actually... yeah, we do. Of course, this again depends on a matter of definition and what you mean by "reasonable doubt".
Regardless, we have a reasonably good idea as to exactly
what happened during the Civil War. Now, there may be scores of different interpretations as to the "whys" and "meanings" of those historical events (not all of which are equally valid), but the events themselves are largely beyond question.
Also, be careful how you're tossing around the word "theories" --- if something truly is a theory, in the scientific sense of the word, than that says tons in regards to its reliability and believability.
We run into this problem of material evidence even more so the further back into history we go. Do we know that the city of Troy even existed, for example? There is very little material evidence to support that it did other then through Homers writings, meaning that there is a certain amount of idealism involved in accepting its existence beyond the stories. Since this seems to be the case, if my ideals were as such where I refused to accept the existance of Troy, then I could argue quite logically and with my material evidence (which would also be lacking) that Troy never existed. This is why there are a lot of self asserted geniuses with PhD's who come up with all kinds of “theories” with ‘evidence” regarding historical events; the lack of “material evidence” allows people to use their ideals to come up with just about anything. However, this doesn’t mean that anything that they come up with really happened that way.
Indeed. This is why it is the responsibility of the critical mind to wade through ALL the available evidence, both material and non-material (this includes logical proofs, among other things), and come to his/her own conclusion. Remember also the circumstance I cited above, in which there are times when the absolute lack of evidence can indeed point to incredulity.
In the specific case of Troy, I would say that its mentioning anywhere outside of Homer's writings (haven't done the research myself, so I don't know) would be a fairly good indication it probably didn't exist. One would expect a city that big to either have some kind of material remains, or be mentioned in the histories of surrounding nations --- but, if there truly is nothing outside of Homer, this points to incredulity as the only conclusion.
All these problems exist when you apply it to the Jesus story. We know, just to throw out an example, that there was more then one person who claimed to be a messiah (and who was crucified for it) around the time of Jesus, leaving the possibility that one of those people could have been the Jesus from the Bible story.
Correction: One of those individuals could have
inspired or
influenced the creation of the Jesus from the Gospel story. A purely "Gospel Jesus" is clearly mythical and non-historical.
This, again, is where we run into problems of context and definition. What exactly do we
mean by "historical Jesus"?? A human the Christian character could have been based on?? Or, an individual that literally lived out the life described in the Gospels??
However, do we have material evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt whether or not any one of those people were Jesus? No; however, that doesnÂ’t discount the possibility. The lack of material evidence will allow anyone to claim anything on the story, but that doesnÂ’t make what he or she claims true.
I would agree with this.
All ancient history requires a level of idealism because there will never be enough material evidence to prove anything in history beyond reasonable doubt. Materialism really can only apply to science and mathematics, not history.
I'm afraid you're a little confused here, Paul.
I would say all history requires a certain degree of
hermeneutics or
interpretation. I don't know if I would personally call that 'idealism'.
And, in any event, there
is enough material evidence to prove certain things beyond reasonable doubt (unless you're a conspiracy nutso) --- we know, for example, that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilks Boothe. The "whys" and "meanings" to that historical event may be debatable (which doesn't mean every interpretation is equally valid), but the event itself is not.
Sometimes, however, the issue is a little gray --- but that is no reason to retreat into the abyss of nihilism. It just means you have to work a little harder to ascertain what exactly happened (with the qualifier being that some things we will just never know).
Some people laugh it off when Christian people try to use science to help validate some of their beliefs (and sometimes I laugh at this too). Well, I laugh even harder when non-Christians try to apply scientific and mathematical ways of thinking to history and theology to validate their disbelief.
Laugh all you want, sometimes such approaches have weight. It does depends on the specific circumstance, though.
Sometimes material evidence can disprove earlier beliefs we held, such as the notion of geo-centrism and the world being flat. Sometimes, material evidence is only indicative (and not actually "proving" anything). Sometimes, a lack of material evidence in extreme circumstances must cause us to regard certain notions with incredulity. It all depends on what's being discussed and the total context of the issue.
The mind is a wonderful, and terrible thing. I donÂ’t think that peoples subconscious are telling them what to do per say, but the subconscious plays a role. The fact of the matter is that people will believe what they want to believe, true or not.
And some people change their beliefs.
If you donÂ’t buy Christianity, fine. If you donÂ’t believe that Jesus existed as a human being, then thatÂ’s your belief. But that is because you chose to look at the evidence both for and against the Jesus story, and you chose to believe what you do. And, everything that you come across, once youÂ’ve decided what your belief is, can be used to support your belief. And, if Jesus came down right now, sat in front of you, and told you that you were wrong, would your Ego (Freudian use of the word) allow you to believe it then?
Perhaps. Perhaps not. I can't really comment with absolute certainty my behavior in hypothetical situations.
It would depend on the circumstance, though. I certainly wouldn't believe someone just because they
told me they were Jesus. I would still require some kind of proof (whether material or not).
I am not comparing you to these people, but, how many murderers, serial killers, and criminals believe that they’ve done nothing wrong? As a Catholic, I wonder how many people who are in hell believe that they don’t deserve to be there? Hell, how many clinically depressed people believe at times that they've done nothing right? I’ll bet the answer to these is “lots.”
This is why not all interpretive (subjective) accounts are equally valid or truthful.
The thing is, if you need to believe that somehow your material and ideal “evidence” to support your belief is somehow going to imperially prove your stance over others who disagree with you, this will never happened, except in your own mind, and the minds of those who may agree with you. This goes for everyone, Christian or not.
True as that may be, it does not change the fact that not all positions are equally valid --- and no amount of rationalizing will change that. You seem to be implying that just because somebody disagrees with you, that the question is "in the air", which is not necessarily true.
Yet again, its all a matter of evidence --- not explaining away said evidence.
So, how to deal with this? Well I can’t answer this for everyone, only for myself. I can say, though, that if you want to have an open dialog on this topic without the conversation turning sour, then you need to realize that your “evidence” to support your belief in the material sense is not “better” then someone else’s, because there is not enough material evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt really anything in regards to religions. Even if, for arguments sake, you have “more” evidence to support your belief, that doesn’t make your belief true beyond reasonable doubt.
It may. Or it may not. Again, it depends on the circumstance.
Once again, it all comes down to a matter of
evidence. This evidence can be material, and it can be mental, and it can even be transmental --- but that does not change the fact that evidence is evidence.
And be careful with this "true beyond a reasonable doubt" angle. That is not something claimed by science, or by me. All that is claimed is that "based on all the available evidence, this is the best explanation that we currently have". Sometimes, the evidence is so overwhelming that said explanation becomes a full-blown theory. And, sometimes it does not.
How do I deal with this dichotomy in regards to my own beliefs? I try to keep an open mind, and use logic to prove my stance. That logic is based on the evidence/premises that I accept, which I try to look at separately in as unbiased a fashion as I can. From there, I formulate what I believe. And that, my friend, is the best anyone can do.
Yes, and you need to understand that that doesn't magically exclude your logic and "evidence" of criticism by others. This seems to be the conclusion you were going for, and its not a conclusion that is very workable in any sense.
So, if you think that this is all “poppycock” still, then go read something by Nietzsche and Freud, or by one of their successors on existentialism and the structural model of Id, Ego, and Superego, and go tell all them that they are poppycock.
Not so much poppycock, but extremely partial. Freud and Nietzsche were both brilliant in some of the insights they disclosed, but they still only focused on a very limited piece of the human experience --- and, even then, many of the particulars and specifics they highlighted have been disproved by more contemporary and updated research.
3. LogicÂ….errrÂ… I like logic, but it is limited.
Of course it is. That's why we find translogical truths and practices in the world's many wisdom traditions. This is no reason, however, to devolve into prerational narcissism...
The first thing that one must realize regarding logic is that the variables must be agreed upon. I can logically prove the existence of God. I can logically prove the Jesus story. However, we will have to agree on all the variables for this to occur, which are left to ideals.
Ummm.... sorry, but not quite.
A logical proof is false/illogical if the premise(s) is also false/illogical. That is very basic stuff, and one of the first things you learn in Critical Thinking & Analysis. No amount of rationalizing will change this, without falling into prerational narcissism.
You canÂ’t say that someoneÂ’s beliefs are illogical unless you understand the variables they are using to know if there is logical fallacy in what they are saying. If they are not being illogical, then you canÂ’t blame them for not being logical, obviously. You may disagree with them, but that means that you are either being illogical in your disagreement, or what you actually disagree with is the variables rather then the arguement.
Nope. If a premise is illogical, then the conclusion is illogical.
And, even if something is "logical", this does not necessarily make it true.
So, what are the variables? When discussing religion, or ancient history for that matter, the variables are not purely material. What you chose to believe, and how you chose to interpret the material evidence (idealism) for your variables will determine the outcome of your logic. So, even with logic, we are back to, “what do you chose to believe?”
Not really, although some may like to think so.
If we are discussing pure logic (and not empirical truth), then there are certain rules and dictums that are followed. No amount of belief or wishful thinking will change this. I will give an example:
1) All cats are grey. Bob is a cat. Bob is grey.
2) Bob is grey. Bob is a cat. All cats are grey.
Situation 1 follows sound logic, as it is supported by logical (although not truthful) premises. Situation 2 is not logical or truthful. You may believe or wish Situation 1 is logical all you want, but that doesn't change the simple fact it has no sound logical proof. This is very, very basic stuff.
4. Truth There is a lot of wisdom in the old saying, “There is you opinion, my opinion, and the truth is somewhere in the middle.”
A very humorous saying, considering it implies that the saying itself is true.
Really, you have your truth, others have theirs, and then there is what is “actually” true. You may never know what is “actually” true, because the "actual truth" is subject to interpretation through "your truth.” This doesn’t mean that actual truth doesn’t exist, but it does mean that it will be subject to interpretation through your eyes, which may or may not accept what it sees. So even in truth, it often comes down to "what do you chose to believe is true?"
Nah, sorry.
We know relative truths
all the time. Relative truths are context-dependent. That means: "Given this set of circumstances, this is true." Something else may not be true within that same set of circumstances (contrary to what certain individuals like to claim). Colombus sailed to North America in 1492 --- now that is a relative
truth, because it is true given a certain context and set of circumstances (temporal circumstances, spatial circumstances, historical circumstances, cultural circumstances, etc). If I claimed Colombus did not sail to North America in 1492 (while using the same context in mind), that would be a relative
falsehood.
So, once again, it comes down to
evidence. The proper interpretation of said evidence, however, does depend on seeing the context in which it exists.
If there is a God, then there is an "actual truth" to his story.
Nope. Sorry, again.
Just because there is a "God", it does not necessarily follow that Mythical Prefigurement is true. That would be like saying that the existence of "God" proves the Flood really happened --- when it just may be that the Flood was a story some madman cooked up completely independent of any influence on the part of God. The same with Mythical Prefigurement.
To prove Mythical Prefigurement, you have to: 1) prove "God" exists, and 2) prove that "God" was responsible for Mythical Prefigurement.
So, whatever matches or alludes to this actual truth will also be "actually true". If I believe in my Catholic perception of God, then I believe that that my way coincides the most with what is actually true. Anything that alludes to what I believe to be true in what I determine to be sound, regardless of where it comes from, will support what I believe. I don’t have to believe that everyone else is wrong to believe that my way is the “most true”. I may believe that some other ways are almost right, or that some are part right and part wrong, or that some are way off base. I can also accept the idea that I may be the one who is wrong to some degree. Of course the standard that I am going to use is my accepted belief. This is true with anyone. My opinion is what is going to be the most right to me.
This does not have to be “elitism” by any stretch. Elitism is believing you are “better” then someone else. Believing you are right isn’t the same as believing you are better then others. This isn’t ethnocentric, for it has nothing to do with race. I am not even of Jewish/middle eastern heritage. I don’t believe that one culture is better then another. I just accept an idea over other ideas. Just like you, and just like everyone else. Naturally people view their beliefs as being the most correct, at least for them and compared to everyone else, otherwise they wouldn’t have them.
Actually, it
is elitism.
Saying everyone is free to believe what they want to believe does not change the fact that the particular belief you are referring to (Mythical Prefigurement) is an ethnocentric, elitist belief. The logical argument you provided above could just as easily be used by the Neo-Nazi to support his beliefs, as well. Because, after all, its "right for him". True as that may be, it doesn't change the fact his beliefs are ethnocentric, bigoted, and racist.
Should I even go into the fact that your "relativist" argument above is inherently contradictory and hypocritical?? After all, all beliefs are true for the individual... except for the belief that all beliefs are true for the individual, which is obviously the ultimate truth, right?? No position is "better" than another... except for the one that says this is so. Ciruclar, circular, circular. That's why logic is so important, Paul.
And, in regards to Mythical Prefigurement, it is elitism through and through. It claims all religions are historically false and accurate but my own --- and, furthermore, they exist for the sole purpose of "proving" the rightness of my own. That is cultural arrogance at its worst.
A side note on this subject; I don’t think it is fair that you assume that if another religion became more dominant in my culture, that I would pick that one over what I have picked. This is not logical, first of all, in the sense that I chose Catholicism over Protestant religions that are dominant in my community and “culture,” and even upon making my choice, I don’t fit the description of your regular obedient Catholic. What you’ve assessed assumes that I illogically go with the masses, which is a poor assumption to make. You may be biased to think that is how all Christians become Christians, but you have really no idea the process involved that developed my idealistic evidence and logical arguments behind why I chose my religion.
Fair enough, but that really wasn't the point I was trying to make.
Manicheism came after Christianity. Manicheism has a savior god (Manes) who possessed many of the features in common with both the Christian Jesus and the Pagan Osiris-Dionysus. If Manicheism had by historical chance managed to become the dominant religion of the West, we would no doubt be hearing some of its modern adherents use this fallacious 'Mythical Prefigurement' to explain how the story of Jesus "points to" or "prefigures" the coming of Manes.
In other words, they would be using
exactly the same logic, rhetoric, and reasoning that you have been --- and it would have been as equally dubious. It doesn't change the fact that the Manichean would have been subscribing to an ethnocentric belief, one that sees his religion's truthfulness to the exclusion of all other and, what's worse, that all those "false religions" exist to point to the Manichean one. How is that not only illogical, but ethnocentric??
Conclusion: People are going to believe what they want. You are no better then anybody else in that regards.
I never claimed I was.
Your evidence, because none of it is empirical, is really no "better" emperically then anything else that is out there either. You may have more evidence then someone else, or you may even out argue someone, but that doesnÂ’t make you better or correct. It just makes you the winner of that argument, or the guy with more evidence then the other guy. Now, I donÂ’t know if your objective is to discuss, to argue, or whatever. But I do know that with whatever youÂ’re trying to do, understand that you are coming from your own beliefs and perspectives ultimately.
Oh, geez.
This slippery slope again, huh?? Should I point out that your position is inherently one of hypocrisy and narcissism?? I tore this stuff apart when Robert started bringing up Derrida -- do I really have to do it again?? Look, what you're basically saying is:
- No one is any more correct than another, all viewpoint are equal.
Unfortunately, the logical conclusion and application of this:
- No one is any more correct than another, except for those of us that say this is so.
This attempt to "level the playing field" is just a veiled attempt to make your view superior to all others. And the veil doesn't fool me.
Once again, if you want people to take your argument seriously, bring out logic and evidence. Don't try and deconstruct the logic and evidence of others in a hodgepodge of relativism (a Christian supporting epistemological relativism has got to be the irony of the year).
Laterz.
