alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 How about things producing heat when they aren't suppossed too?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002207289080009U How does one document a suspension of natural laws? I "dropped" my book off my desk. It didn't fall, but instead rose and settled on shelves above my desk. How do I document that? Set up some video cameras and drop more books. You are right in that we do not have a good approach for studying suspensions of natural laws. It may be fundamentally impossible to do so, in some cases, but possible in others. We could study suspensions of natural laws that are triggered by praying, for example, and it would be AWESOME if such suspensions happened when praying to one God but not another God. Alas this is not something we actually observe. ---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 11:22 AM ---------- Most of history isn't....what's your point? I understand that collaboration of disinterested sources is a big thing for historians. In case of Jesus we have neither. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Most of history isn't....what's your point? That most of the people that witnessed the miracles were illiterate people who didn't have nearly the understanding of the natural world that we have today. (Even our understanding today is quite limited) Sure, someone intelligent may have written the story down later but that doesn't give it more validity. In the end it's not worth arguing over anyways. Miracles are something that requires faith, you aren't going to argue people into believing in them just like if someone truly believes you aren't going to argue them out of believing. If someone believes Jesus is who he said he is, then him having a child shouldn't really matter. I get why people are against it but the entire religion isn't based on proof, it's based on faith. You can't mock the lack of proof that he had a child meanwhile defend the lack of proof of a large majority of the rest of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 That's your default state...and yet the vast majority of human beings do not live by that standard, it is far from being universal. I disagree. Vast majority of human beings break this standard for their supernatural beliefs of choice, but otherwise they very much adhere to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I actually don't think that's an unreasonable position. The issue becomes what constitutes evidence.What evidence do I (or any of us) have that our physical world is real? This papyrus is clearly evidence Jesus was married. Just not convincing evidence. First off it's from several hundred years after Christs death, 4th century. Second off the sentence where Christ is perhaps introducing his wife, is on a scrape of paper which is not in any context. The Catholic Church has been referenced by early Christians to be the wife of Christ. Could this text be referring to that? Who knows, certainly not us. But just on the face of it.. This script is from a previously unknown gospel. Even if this gospel was saying Christ was married; we literally have a hundred other gospels which say otherwise. This is literally the only gospel which reports this.... It's an interesting piece of a puzzle. But taken in and of itself it's really not determinative of anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I understand that collaboration of disinterested sources is a big thing for historians. Your understanding is incorrect (at least in the implications). Ancient historians recognize that there was no such thing as the modern "unbiased" historian we hold as a standard today (quite the opposite, really), and so have developed a set of historical criteria to verify and establish facts from the writings we have. I kind of alluded to one, the criteria of embarrassment. If ancient historians limited themselves to only "disinterested sources", we'd have to pretty much throw out all history prior to relatively modern times. Our primary source for Caesar crossing the Rubicon, for example, is his own biography, which he wrote primarily as political propoganda. This does not prevent historians from concluding that the event actually happened, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I disagree. Vast majority of human beings break this standard for their supernatural beliefs of choice, but otherwise they very much adhere to it. You have the right to your opinion, you also have the right to be wrong. People in general do not sit around all day and ponder whether they have sufficient evidence to believe whether something is true or not, you may...but that makes you an exception not the rule. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 What evidence do I (or any of us) have that our physical world is real? If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I understand that collaboration of disinterested sources is a big thing for modern historians. In case of Jesus we have neither. If we used the standard of modern historians for everything then we wouldn't be able to believe anything written historically that occurred more than 100 years ago, good luck with that. BTW, we are soooo far off topic that it's not even funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Your understanding is incorrect (at least in the implications). Ancient historians recognize that there was no such thing as the modern "unbiased" historian we hold as a standard today (quite the opposite, really), and so have developed a set of historical criteria to verify and establish facts from the writings we have. I kind of alluded to one, the criteria of embarrassment. I was talking about modern historians. For some reason all these suspensions of natural laws failed to make it into contemporary non-Christian sources. If ancient historians limited themselves to only "disinterested sources", we'd have to pretty much throw out all history prior to relatively modern times. Our primary source for Caesar crossing the Rubicon, for example, is his own biography, which he wrote primarily as political propoganda. This does not prevent historians from concluding that the event actually happened, though. Are there other sources that describe this event? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unforgiven Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 BTW, we are soooo far off topic that it's not even funny. It's a thread that involves religion, it always goes downhill fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 If we used the standard of modern historians for everything then we wouldn't be able to believe anything written historically that occurred more than 100 years ago, good luck with that.BTW, we are soooo far off topic that it's not even funny. That is why we should not believe it. Believe is not the right word for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 It's a thread that involves religion, it always goes downhill fast. Without a doubt, I didn't even realize how fast we got side tracked until just a moment ago. BTW, I can't believe no one commented on the article of the George Washington document fragment...I worked really hard on that...errrrrr.....I mean lots of scholarship went into that research. :pfft: ---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 11:36 AM ---------- That is why we should not believe it. Believe is not the right word for it. So, believe nothing that happened more than 100 years ago....got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Originally Posted by Ludwig Wittgenstein If you tried to doubt everything you would not get as far as doubting anything. The game of doubting itself presupposes certainty. So does that mean you have decided that you don't have the ability to doubt things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 <edit> Miracles are something that requires faith, you aren't going to argue people into believing in them just like if someone truly believes you aren't going to argue them out of believing. As I always say, this is so. And the committed atheist is of a countering view but fundamentally similar on any basic dynamic of faith v skepticism on any such matter. And I'm not "insulting" or demeaning either. Referring back to my earlier post and about belief, a thought I've long held, having a background that was diverse but included a heavy dose of devout Catholics and Protestants in it (well, and being a sci-fi fan since pre-teen) was that I have always thought that aliens could land and tell us they know all about us, and prove it, and then state there is no God as we frame it, and give all sorts of "evidence", and most believers would find a way to work around it and keep their faith (I can think of many ways to do it were I one). That's not intended as any kind of negative comment, just noting a reality of the dynamics of such beliefs. And most committed atheists would do similar if beings looking for the world like angels right out of the Bible descended with a Jesus-looking ("classic" image) figure claiming to be Jesus and did all kinds of angel and Jesus miracle things (not is an End of Days sense, just a sort of "see, we're real" sense) and announced basically it was just like you'd been told by Christianity. The CA would be be more likely to suspect it was advanced aliens or a secret organization's hi-tech plot doing it for some reason. A few folks in either camp would "defect" in each scenario, but most would find a way to keep thinking what they think already on this matter no mater what was presented as countering evidence and no matter in what form. Our minds, properly willed to do so, can work around anything if it's important enough to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
techboy Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 BTW, we are soooo far off topic that it's not even funny. The endless rehashing of argument about standards for establishing a miraculous event is completely off topic. It would not be miraculous for Jesus to have been married. The discussion of the historical method is not off topic at all, I don't think, because part of the story is how we would determine the utility of this text, should it be established. I was talking about modern historians. So was I. Perhaps I should have used the more precise phrasing "modern historians of ancient history". These modern historians recognize that there was no such thing as disinterested histories in ancient times, and so rather than anachronistically applying modern standards to ancient people, they instead developed various criteria that work to cut through the problems of bias and so on, and help us determine what can be established historically. If they only accepted information from disinterested sources, there would be no ancient history. For some reason all these suspensions of natural laws failed to make it into contemporary non-Christian sources. 1. That's not strictly true, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. 2. This is something of a silly argument, anyway. Anybody that records a miracle would be automatically classified by you as a Christian source, so you have set up an impossible standard. Are there other sources that describe this event? I am unaware of any contemporary sources, other than the biography itself, of course, that describe this event. There are later sources, but they aren't "disinterested" either. They all had agendas, such as the glorification of the Roman state, or the deification of Caesar, or whatever. There simply was no conception of the "disinterested" source. To demand such is to destroy vast swaths of historical knowledge, unreasonably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 So, believe nothing that happened more than 100 years ago....got it. Yes. Believe nothing, think about history in terms of available evidence. So does that mean you have decided that you don't have the ability to doubt things? In other words, doubts about whether reality is real are meaningless. You have to stand on something in order to doubt something else. ---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 12:12 PM ---------- ... And most committed atheists would do similar if beings looking for the world like angels right out of the Bible descended with a Jesus-looking ("classic" image) figure claiming to be Jesus and did all kinds of angel and Jesus miracle things (not is an End of Days sense, just a sort of "see, we're real" sense) and announced basically it was just like you'd been told by Christianity. The CA would be be more likely to suspect it was advanced aliens or a secret organization's hi-tech plot doing it for some reason. A few folks in either camp would "defect" in each scenario, but most would find a way to keep thinking what they think already on this matter no mater what was presented as countering evidence and no matter in what form. Our minds, properly willed to do so, can work around anything if it's important enough to us. ... I understand that this hinges on a definition of a "committed atheist", but I would generally disagree with this. If praying to Jesus and only to Jesus would reliably cure cancer, for example, I think atheists would find it very convincing. I think atheism is fundamentally based on a lack of mechanism to compare validity of supernatural claims made by different religions. People who see no good reason to pick one religion over another tend to see no good reason to pick one religion at all. (other than going with their cultural heritage while dropping beliefs in supernatural claims) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Yes. Believe nothing, think about history in terms of available evidence. Like I said....very very few people actually live like this, you may think they do...but they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 So was I. Perhaps I should have used the more precise phrasing "modern historians of ancient history". These modern historians recognize that there was no such thing as disinterested histories in ancient times, and so rather than anachronistically applying modern standards to ancient people, they instead developed various criteria that work to cut through the problems of bias and so on, and help us determine what can be established historically. If they only accepted information from disinterested sources, there would be no ancient history. Makes sense, thank you for clarifying. How about, natural human biases make it impossible to have a disinterested historical source... so modern historians would generally want a story corroborated by multiple sources that are interested in different things. 1. That's not strictly true, but it's irrelevant to this discussion. 2. This is something of a silly argument, anyway. Anybody that records a miracle would be automatically classified by you as a Christian source, so you have set up an impossible standard. I am unaware of any contemporary sources, other than the biography itself, of course, that describe this event. There are later sources, but they aren't "disinterested" either. They all had agendas, such as the glorification of the Roman state, or the deification of Caesar, or whatever. There simply was no conception of the "disinterested" source. To demand such is to destroy vast swaths of historical knowledge, unreasonably. I would like to think that I would not dismiss a contemporary Roman source that describes some Jesus guy going around and doing funky things. Since there is no such source, I do not think it is useful to discuss whether I would properly handle evidence that does not exist. ---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 12:33 PM ---------- Like I said....very very few people actually live like this, you may think they do...but they don't. You may be right... it seems natural to accept things which one sees no good reason to doubt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Botched Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Big deal. It's not like one mis-translated piece of papyrus is going to result in a new controversial religion or anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 You have the right to your opinion, you also have the right to be wrong. People in general do not sit around all day and ponder whether they have sufficient evidence to believe whether something is true or not, you may...but that makes you an exception not the rule. Sorry to interject in here. My disclaimer is, I am not well versed at all in arguments of religion, so I'll make this brief and if you counter my post, I may not be able to respond correctly to it. I agree that the majority of people do not sit around and ponder whether they have sufficient evidence to believe whether something is true or not, but as humans have evolved and new technology surfaces, I think more and more, people 'are" starting to question things they believed or didn't believe in before. I think society has actually started to shift into a "show me" state of mind. I was brought up Catholic, but the older I've got, the less faith I have. I'd have to say I'm agnostic as of now and I'm in the "I want to see it before I believe it" state. I want proof these things exist before I believe someone who wrote it down in a book hundreds of years ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Sorry to interject in here. My disclaimer is, I am not well versed at all in arguments of religion, so I'll make this brief and if you counter my post, I may not be able to respond correctly to it. I agree that the majority of people do not sit around and ponder whether they have sufficient evidence to believe whether something is true or not, but as humans have evolved and new technology surfaces, I think more and more, people 'are" starting to question things they believed or didn't believe in before. I think society has actually started to shift into a "show me" state of mind. I was brought up Catholic, but the older I've got, the less faith I have. I'd have to say I'm agnostic as of now and I'm in the "I want to see it before I believe it" state. I want proof these things exist before I believe someone who wrote it down in a book hundreds of years ago. I see that a lot when it the discussion is in terms of Jesus and the early church etc, however I see it much less on non-religious historical topics. Which might suggest a particular bias. For instance, very few people have the same level of "lack of faith" in the existence of Marco Polo or other non-religious historical figures as they do in Jesus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 I am interested in this discovery from a scientific/historical point of view, and I will be interested to see what develops in the future about this subject. I agree with techboy that this scholar appears to have taken the responsible approach in how she presented her finding and asked for the academic community to weigh in. As an agnostic, I always want to learn more, not to prove or disprove anything, but to help me come to a more firm conclusion either way. I am a little disappointed to see so many Christians automatically "circle the wagons" on this subject, but I guess it is understandable when you are dealing with a central pillar of people's deeply held faith, and it is not like alexey doesn't like to poke the bear with a stick whenever he can ---------- Post added September-19th-2012 at 09:51 AM ---------- I see that a lot when it the discussion is in terms of Jesus and the early church etc, however I see it much less on non-religious historical topics. Which might suggest a particular bias. Or it might suggest that the subject is more important to many people (on both sides) due to the overwhelming influence of Christianity and dominance of Christians in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 Or it might suggest that the subject is more important to many people (on both sides) due to the overwhelming influence of Christianity and dominance of Christians in our society. It may well suggest that, but the point still stands. What's more is that you wrote "due to the overwhelming influence of Christianity and dominance of Christians in our society", first I'm not seeing a difference between the "influence of Christianity" and "dominance of Christians", second am I hearing that such increased suspicion (which is not normal for other historical figures) is then being applied to Jesus from biased motivations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
China Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 More follow-up: Reality check on Jesus and his 'wife' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted September 19, 2012 Share Posted September 19, 2012 In other words, doubts about whether reality is real are meaningless. You have to stand on something in order to doubt something else. I understood what your point of the quote was, but I don't see why I have to stand on "reality" being "real". And I certainly don't see why I have to be certain about anything to have doubts about everything. *EDIT* And if you are going to claim that you have to certain to doubt, I'd be curouis to know how you are certain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.