Academic Fables and Myths: Does Believing Make It So?

BreakPoint with Charles Colson ^ | August 13, 2004 | Mark Earley

[BikerNYC]

What standards of proof do you require?

You hit the nail on the head. Truth is a human invention which requires a human to judge, for himself, whether or not any particular evidence sufficiently establishes a proposition. For some, the proferred evidence will be sufficient to establish a truth, for others it will be insufficient. In each case, however, there is a non-reducable human judgment to make that decision, and the judgment itself is not supported by any evidence -- it is a leap.

Things are true, not because we believe them to be true, but because we judge them to be true.

[outlawcam]

People do not respond equally to reason and logic because they often do not see the mathematical equation that underlies all logic, or they are blinded by their own biases. Logic is nothing more than a system of reasoning that can be used to predict likely outcomes or ascertain likely causes. A logical argument is one that must be true or is likely true, given the facts. You have to agree to certain premises though, as a matter of faith. It is impossible to do without these premises without inconsistency and contradiction. One such premise is this: Whatever is, is. Something cannot both be and not be at the same point in time. These are premises that underly our system of epistemology. Without them, it is doubtful that we could agree to anything. Usually, most people will agree to them, but there are contrarians who will not, in spite of any and all utility and reason. Because they have no faith in reason, they have no reason. Because they have no reason, they have no faith (in the spiritual sense--they have faith that, for instance, of the unimportance of it all, but that's not what I'm talking about here).

So logical arguments should not be confused with contradiction. People who are in the midst of an argument often fall into this fallacy, whereas they should be looking for fallacies in the structure of the arguments or the premises of those arguments.

[orionblamblam]

> You are holding Jesus to a higher standard of proof than you likely attribute to any historical figure.

As it should be. Consider: if you get on a soapbox and proclaim, "I had jello today," We could easily take your word for it. If, however, you proclaim, "I am Elvis reborn of an alien mother," you'd better either back that up or get ready for the nice fellows in the white suits.

> How do you determine, historically speaking, if something did or did not happen?

A lot of it depends on the amazingness of the claimed event. See above. One good way to to examine the sources... if *separate*, *independant* sources report essentially the same thing, that's a good sign. If *opposing* sources report essentially the same thing, that's even better. If, however, the claims come solely or largely from a source or sources who would stand to benefit from the acceptance of the tale, that's not as good evidence. Who among us would seriously listen to New Agers blather on about how Yogi Soandso flapped his knees, attained Enlightenment, and flew around the room?

>If Jesus truly did all it He claimed to do and truly did rise from the dead in the manner described in the Bible, wouldn't you agree that would be pretty compelling evidence?

Uh, no. From your perspective, if I invented Flubber yesterday and flew around my living room... that would NOT be good evidence that I invented Flubber yesterday and flew around my living room. What *would* be good evidence is Actual Evidence, not just the claim.

If, indeed, Jesus did what his compatriots claimed he did, then, yes, that would certainly bolster the case for his divinity something fierce. However, the evidence for those actual miraculous events is pretty lean.

[orionblamblam]

> One such premise is this: Whatever is, is. Something cannot both be and not be at the same point in time.

Kiri-kin-tha's First Law of Metaphysics: "Nothing unreal exists."

[outlawcam]

Things are true, not because we believe them to be true, but because we judge them to be true.

Nonsense. The question is what evidence you require for something to be established as true? Whether or not something is true does not depend on your belief that it is true. The question is for you, personally, not whether or not people need different evidence to be convinced of something.

If I say, for instance, that X=X, you need not believe it in order for it to be true, even though it self-evidently is. One jury acquitted OJ Simpson of murder. Does that mean that the "truth" is that he did not cut his former wife up with a knife? Or did that event happen independently of your belief? A civil jury found OJ liable for the deaths of his former wife and Ron Goldman. Did that change the event that led to the trial? Absolutely not! "What is" has an entirely different substance than "what is believed." We can find evidence of certain things, though, to determine what is or what was. Whether or not that evidence is sufficient to convince you is completely independent of the actual truth.

[BallparkBoys]

"One good way to to examine the sources... if *separate*, *independant* sources report essentially the same thing, that's a good sign. If *opposing* sources report essentially the same thing, that's even better. If, however, the claims come solely or largely from a source or sources who would stand to benefit from the acceptance of the tale, that's not as good evidence.

Does that mean that you believe in Noah and the flood?? Since most cultures of the world have a flood story in their history, then you will I assume believe it?

[outlawcam]

you'd better either back that up or get ready for the nice fellows in the white suits.

No... I agree with that. I was referring to something else, though. I don't see a need to go into it, though, based on your post.

So based on the above quote, you think Jesus was a lunatic? Or you believe his followers were?

[orionblamblam]

> Does that mean that you believe in Noah and the flood?? Since most cultures of the world have a flood story in their history, then you will I assume believe it?

Well, I believe that in the ancient past, there were some pretty nasty floods. Whether there was a flood that involved a fella named "Noah," I can't say.

The various flood stories do not report essentially the same thing to the Noah/Ark/Jehovah level of detail, only that floods happened and caused damage. Since we see such things today, it's not difficult to believe that destructive floods occured in the past.

[orionblamblam]

>you think Jesus was a lunatic? Or you believe his followers were?

Insufficient data to form a supportable conclusion. Consider all the possibilities:
1: Jesus was nuts.
2: Apostles were nuts.
3: They were all nuts.
4: Jesus never existed, but the Apostles were nuts and thought he did.
5: Jesus never existed, but the Apostles made him up for political/revolutionary purposes.
6: Jesus was The Real Deal.

Now, options 1-5 are all reasonable possibilities, and things we can all find examples of in recent history... Joe Smith, Elron Hubbard, Branch Davidians, heaven's Gate, etc. Nuts/Liars are common and clear possibilities when it comes to miracle workers. But *actual* miracles? The evidence is pretty slim on that.

So what was Jesus? I dunno. I stand ready to examine hard factual evidence. But we may never know, just as we may never know what the Minoan culture called itself.

[outlawcam]

There is a short book I'd ask you to read before you come to a conclusion on the matter, if you're interested in examining the evidence. I could try to do it here, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do it much justice. Interested?

[BikerNYC]

Whether or not that evidence is sufficient to convince you is completely independent of the actual truth.

Can you establish that there exists Truth independent of what you believe to be true? You may believe it, but how would you go about proving such a thing. It is a presupposition. Bishop George Berkeley, a noted philosopher, hypothesized that nothing has any subsistance without a mind. Accordingly, for him, what is out there is nothing but what is in our heads -- ideas. "What is" is "what is thought."

One jury acquitted OJ Simpson of murder. Does that mean that the "truth" is that he did not cut his former wife up with a knife?

It means that twelve people judged the evidence and came to believe that the truth was that there was a reasonable doubt that OJ murdered his wife. Simple as that. You may judge the truth to be that the evidence did not establish a reasonable doubt that OJ murdered his wife. Two different judgments based upon the same evidence. It happens all the time.

[orionblamblam]

> There is a short book I'd ask you to read ... I could try to do it here, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to do it much justice.

Errr... tain't difficult to suggest that someone read a book... You're already most of the way there, now you just have to cough up a title, maybe an author...

On matters of miracles and divinity, "evidence" has a tendency to take on a whole new meaning. There is a tendency for it to be convincing only to those who are already convinced, and for those not already convinced... they have insufficient faith, or some damned thing...

[outlawcam]

but how would you go about proving such a thing.

See...I'm amazed at what you're passing for an argument... This is called "changing the subject." It is a fallacy as well. Let's examine the original statement:

Things are true, not because we believe them to be true, but because we judge them to be true.

Let's examine these things one at a time. First: Truth is independent of our will or imaginings. Truth is independent of whether or not we have evidence of it. Whether or not we can prove something to be true is independent of whether or not it is true. I will, in turn, grant you that truth, apart from evidence, is impossible to prove, and highly impractical.

[outlawcam]

Errr... tain't difficult to suggest that someone read a book... You're already most of the way there, now you just have to cough up a title, maybe an author.

Actually, I was going to purchase and mail it to you over Amazon. The challenge I would have would be how to get it to you without violating confidentiality and so forth. Do you have an Amazon account? If so and this arrangement is agreeable, put this book in your wish list and then FReepmail me the link: More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell.

[orionblamblam]

> Actually, I was going to purchase and mail it to you over Amazon.

Okay... that's just creepy.

> More than a Carpenter by Josh McDowell.

The name was familiar... and then I remembered why:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/index.shtml

I've read some of the man's work... it's pretty... errr... lame. Here's an example, from http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/easter/articles/josh2.html:

"Here are some of the facts relevant to the resurrection: Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone."

The problem is... virtually NOTHING there is an actual fact... just a claim. The historicity of Jesus itself is in serious doubt; so to claim that it is a fact that someone who may not have even existed was arrested is of course seriously dubious.

[stuartcr]

Please explain to me, logically, why anyones' particular religious beliefs are reasonable.

[outlawcam]

A religious belief is reasonable if you can rule out the alternatives as unreasonable.

[outlawcam]

Okay... that's just creepy.

Why is that? Has no one ever done anything nice for you before?

The historicity of Jesus itself is in serious doubt;

Well... I wouldn't call it serious doubt...More like a sophist's reasoning. There is more serious evidence that He existed than there is that Plato existed. Yet we do not doubt it.

Unfortunately, I've got to go for now. We can take up this discussion later if you wish. I did a precursory review of the material on the infidel.org website, and from the little bit I read, the author really doesn't address McDowell's statements. I recommend you read the book yourself. Since I am the one making the recommendation, and because it is so inexpensive, I still maintain the offer to purchase it for you. If it is on your wish list, I don't think I'll have any clue who you are. Your identity should remain hidden. It will be my gift to you. I will also read the websites you cited, although I've read plenty like it in my day. I, like McDowell, was a skeptic before Christ brought me to him.

You will not be able to truly appreciate what that means unless you first experience it...but let it suffice to say for now that I am a Christian now, whereas until a few years ago I was not.

[GSlob]

"If you sincerely believe that you’re a frog, do you become a frog?"- Your faith has to be sufficiently strong for it. A mustard seed's worth of faith is claimed to move mountains. But as contemporary people are weak of faith, they do not become frogs.

[stuartcr]

Thanks anyway.