Well I could just link to another article that describes the evidence for Jesus. This would be intellectually vacant. I will use a few articles/blogs etc and do the hard yards, as in read both sides and focus on why either argument is compelling or not.
So this will take some time (maybe months).
The difficulty I will have is in understanding how one side can abandon reason in arguing he case. Yes, I'm already of the mind that the religious have reasoned incorrectly, but why have they. What stops them from "joining those final dots"
And I am now faced with understanding the psychology of the believer.
25 April 2012
24 April 2012
Evidence: doubt it or believe it
Some important things about evidence.
If the police turned up at my place and said they had arrested my son for murder (a serious crime...). And I ask how they know that my son is the culprit? The policeman/woman tells me that a person "A" came into there station-house and said that they knew another person "B" who told them that they know my son had killed "X".
Of course I'm very upset, and ask had they spoken to person "B". The police say - nope, don't need to, we feel the word of "A" is plenty good enough for us and that will make it a "sealed deal".
Would you be concerned? The evidence of "A" is called hearsay. Its in-direct. Do we know who "B" is - no, and do we get a chance to question "B" as to how they were witness to the crime.
In a modern court of law (any - probably most, countries) hearsay evidence is not good enough. Actually its very poor evidence and doesn't get aired in court at all.
Why? because its unsafe, too easy to pervert, potentially fraudulent. In other words, its better to doubt its veracity then to believe it.
I'll add a post detailing the sources for this statement - but I need to say this now. The evidence for a Jesus, living in or near a place called Nazareth is hearsay. Letters and statements written by a person who had been told by another person (and sometimes many other people in the chain) about a person called Jesus.
This hearsay evidence is made worse by the tyranny of time. These statements, as relayed from another person(s) were around 60-70 plus years after the supposed life of this Jesus. This would be like my son being locked up for a crime committed before he was born on the word of "A" as told to them by "B" (whom we can't talk too)
Sound dodgy? Wow - so far we are only looking at what evidence could be taken and believed versus evidence we should doubt. So the next few posts will focus on "existence of Jesus" What evidence are people using to make the statements that Jesus existed. Should that evidence be believed or doubted?
In other words, would I trust my sons life based on the quality of evidence used to support the case for the existence of Jesus. You can tell that I'm one of those doubters, but I'm open enough to read the Apologists writing and find out why they see evidence to believe, and where others see evidence to doubt...
Ciao
If the police turned up at my place and said they had arrested my son for murder (a serious crime...). And I ask how they know that my son is the culprit? The policeman/woman tells me that a person "A" came into there station-house and said that they knew another person "B" who told them that they know my son had killed "X".
Of course I'm very upset, and ask had they spoken to person "B". The police say - nope, don't need to, we feel the word of "A" is plenty good enough for us and that will make it a "sealed deal".
Would you be concerned? The evidence of "A" is called hearsay. Its in-direct. Do we know who "B" is - no, and do we get a chance to question "B" as to how they were witness to the crime.
In a modern court of law (any - probably most, countries) hearsay evidence is not good enough. Actually its very poor evidence and doesn't get aired in court at all.
Why? because its unsafe, too easy to pervert, potentially fraudulent. In other words, its better to doubt its veracity then to believe it.
I'll add a post detailing the sources for this statement - but I need to say this now. The evidence for a Jesus, living in or near a place called Nazareth is hearsay. Letters and statements written by a person who had been told by another person (and sometimes many other people in the chain) about a person called Jesus.
This hearsay evidence is made worse by the tyranny of time. These statements, as relayed from another person(s) were around 60-70 plus years after the supposed life of this Jesus. This would be like my son being locked up for a crime committed before he was born on the word of "A" as told to them by "B" (whom we can't talk too)
Sound dodgy? Wow - so far we are only looking at what evidence could be taken and believed versus evidence we should doubt. So the next few posts will focus on "existence of Jesus" What evidence are people using to make the statements that Jesus existed. Should that evidence be believed or doubted?
In other words, would I trust my sons life based on the quality of evidence used to support the case for the existence of Jesus. You can tell that I'm one of those doubters, but I'm open enough to read the Apologists writing and find out why they see evidence to believe, and where others see evidence to doubt...
Ciao
20 April 2012
Existence of Jesus? Really?
In chapter one I'm suddenly affronted by this statement
"No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus" - Bold words. Worth a book or two on its own. And I believe has consumed many "scholars" both for and against its hypothesis.
Lets break down the statement 1. reputable scholar, 2. Existence of Jesus, 3. Doubt
Lets work backwards through these three....
3. Doubt. Well doubt and how it applies to evidence
It is important to remove faith from this evaluation of this statement. Faith leads to the abandonment of reason. Ar, that word reason again.
I had the the misfortune of being part of a jury trial a few years ago. I say misfortune as it wasn't a pleasant experience, even though it was a civic duty, the "civic" didn't really look after us a jurors. It was traumatic to me as it was about sexual molestation of girls who happened to be the same age as my own daughter at that time.
Being an outspoken sort of guy (yeah really!) I was made foreman. The foremans role in a jury trial is a strangely hidden one, although if you have watched the movie "12 Angry Men" then you will have some idea. It can be like herding cats.
OK - As a jury we had to look at the evidence presented. Assess its worth. Who said what about what they say or witnessed being said. Lots of first hand stuff. There was a lot of second hand stuff as well, and we were told, as a jury, to ignore this as it wasn't good enough as evidence.
As the foreman of this jury I had to chair the discussion. We had five charges to work our way through and we eventually decided guilty on 3 of the 5. Not enough evidence for 2 of the charges.
Spoiler Alert!! Interestingly, if we applied a similar evidence based logic to the existence of Jesus, we might have some problems.... the next post gets into it
"No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus" - Bold words. Worth a book or two on its own. And I believe has consumed many "scholars" both for and against its hypothesis.
Lets break down the statement 1. reputable scholar, 2. Existence of Jesus, 3. Doubt
Lets work backwards through these three....
3. Doubt. Well doubt and how it applies to evidence
It is important to remove faith from this evaluation of this statement. Faith leads to the abandonment of reason. Ar, that word reason again.
I had the the misfortune of being part of a jury trial a few years ago. I say misfortune as it wasn't a pleasant experience, even though it was a civic duty, the "civic" didn't really look after us a jurors. It was traumatic to me as it was about sexual molestation of girls who happened to be the same age as my own daughter at that time.
Being an outspoken sort of guy (yeah really!) I was made foreman. The foremans role in a jury trial is a strangely hidden one, although if you have watched the movie "12 Angry Men" then you will have some idea. It can be like herding cats.
OK - As a jury we had to look at the evidence presented. Assess its worth. Who said what about what they say or witnessed being said. Lots of first hand stuff. There was a lot of second hand stuff as well, and we were told, as a jury, to ignore this as it wasn't good enough as evidence.
As the foreman of this jury I had to chair the discussion. We had five charges to work our way through and we eventually decided guilty on 3 of the 5. Not enough evidence for 2 of the charges.
Spoiler Alert!! Interestingly, if we applied a similar evidence based logic to the existence of Jesus, we might have some problems.... the next post gets into it
So, why am I doing this?
Great question - I do ponder this. I'm not here for some ego trip.
What I believe is that if we are to lessen the effect of religion on society (the bigotry, the hate, the fear, the guilt, the mental abuse, the misinformation ) then we need to let the religious moderates know that they have a problem to deal with.
Why religious moderates? They are the group that allows the "Fundamentalists", "Extremists", "Literalists" (in other words, those on the extreme edges of religious belief) to perpetuate the "bad stuff".
How do we make change in our society? We need to mock religion. Show that as a hypothesis on life, that it is a poor description of how the world is around us, and what our place in this world is. That people need to be respected, and that ideas are not sacred and don't need to be respected.
If we can handle the truth about Santa Claus, then I think we can handle the truth about Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, etc
What I believe is that if we are to lessen the effect of religion on society (the bigotry, the hate, the fear, the guilt, the mental abuse, the misinformation ) then we need to let the religious moderates know that they have a problem to deal with.
Why religious moderates? They are the group that allows the "Fundamentalists", "Extremists", "Literalists" (in other words, those on the extreme edges of religious belief) to perpetuate the "bad stuff".
How do we make change in our society? We need to mock religion. Show that as a hypothesis on life, that it is a poor description of how the world is around us, and what our place in this world is. That people need to be respected, and that ideas are not sacred and don't need to be respected.
If we can handle the truth about Santa Claus, then I think we can handle the truth about Yahweh, Allah, Jehovah, Jesus, etc
Letter to Matt - Been re-reading some of your posts and comments
Dear Matt,
Confusion reigns! Been re-reading some of your posts and especially the comments made. I wonder if you as an Christian Apologist might spend more of your time/effort on sorting out the story inside Christianity. The mixed messages are mind-blowing (not in a good way...)
All the best
SCA
Confusion reigns! Been re-reading some of your posts and especially the comments made. I wonder if you as an Christian Apologist might spend more of your time/effort on sorting out the story inside Christianity. The mixed messages are mind-blowing (not in a good way...)
All the best
SCA
17 April 2012
Twitter #IfAtheistsTalkedLikeChristians
Nice work people - love your style.
So why do we mock the beliefs of Christians and other religions? Because this is the way towards eliminating it from our society.
So why do we mock the beliefs of Christians and other religions? Because this is the way towards eliminating it from our society.
Letter to Matt - Doubts
Dear Matt
Thanks for introducing the term OTF. I hadn't heard that before (gosh - so much reading to do).
Doubt is something that we all inherit. Keeps us safe from danger. Allowed us to survive as a species. When you look at other animal species we often say (for example) that "cat" looks timid, but no - it doubts (in other words, is skeptical about your out-reached hand) and until it gathers sufficient evidence (sound of your voice, smells, location) to assuage the skepticism it will stay back.
Religions ask us to suspend that doubt, and then states that the evidence does not need to be tested.
What do we do with this? How do we ask a religion to prove it self?
Yours with interest
SCA
Thanks for introducing the term OTF. I hadn't heard that before (gosh - so much reading to do).
Doubt is something that we all inherit. Keeps us safe from danger. Allowed us to survive as a species. When you look at other animal species we often say (for example) that "cat" looks timid, but no - it doubts (in other words, is skeptical about your out-reached hand) and until it gathers sufficient evidence (sound of your voice, smells, location) to assuage the skepticism it will stay back.
Religions ask us to suspend that doubt, and then states that the evidence does not need to be tested.
What do we do with this? How do we ask a religion to prove it self?
Yours with interest
SCA
16 April 2012
Letters to Matt -"No reputable scholar ..."
Dear Matt,
It is with some concern that a book you have lent your name to has made the statement "No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus". Your reputation, in my opinion is at risk when you associate yourself with poor arguments or shoddy workmanship.
With your best interests at heart, please be careful.
Yours faithfully
SCA
OK - the all joking aside. Lets break down the statement 1. reputable scholar, 2. Existence of Jesus, 3. Doubt
Lets work backwards through these three....Lets move to a new post
Ciao
It is with some concern that a book you have lent your name to has made the statement "No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus". Your reputation, in my opinion is at risk when you associate yourself with poor arguments or shoddy workmanship.
With your best interests at heart, please be careful.
Yours faithfully
SCA
OK - the all joking aside. Lets break down the statement 1. reputable scholar, 2. Existence of Jesus, 3. Doubt
Lets work backwards through these three....Lets move to a new post
Ciao
13 April 2012
Quote
You can not convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it is based on a deep-seated need to believe. - Carl Sagan
12 April 2012
Chapter One - The Party of Reason by Tom Gilson
Part of a review for this book closed with the following statement:
Which is more reasonable: atheism or Christianity? Read “True Reason” and think for yourself.”
Lots of problems with this statement. atheism or [Insert any religion here]" Now that's a statement that works.
The current wave of atheism isn't an attack on Christianity. Its a social statement in regard to all religions.
OK - I'm off topic already, back to Chapter One. Warning: there will be many posts about chapter one.
The first chapter is about the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) and the atheist claim of being about "Reason".
The chapter states the claim that the New Atheists books, articles and debates are riddled with fallacy, appeals to emotion, and mishandling of evidence. Essentially, that the call to reason has been incompetent.
This is a bold statement, and opens the writer up to the same scrutiny as they are applying to the New Atheists. A discussion on Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris follows and then a series of closing statements to draw a more abstract definition of "reason" and then how the rest of the book will assist in support of the argument that reasoning is from God.
Lots in here to work with, but I am going to start with the statement "No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus". What follows is nothing to back this up. So I started to do some research. It should scare the Christians amongst us how sketchy the evidence is, and I'm calling it evidence only out of...no, actually I can't think of a good "reason" to call it evidence.
Which is more reasonable: atheism or Christianity? Read “True Reason” and think for yourself.”
Lots of problems with this statement. atheism or [Insert any religion here]" Now that's a statement that works.
The current wave of atheism isn't an attack on Christianity. Its a social statement in regard to all religions.
OK - I'm off topic already, back to Chapter One. Warning: there will be many posts about chapter one.
The first chapter is about the New Atheists (Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris) and the atheist claim of being about "Reason".
The chapter states the claim that the New Atheists books, articles and debates are riddled with fallacy, appeals to emotion, and mishandling of evidence. Essentially, that the call to reason has been incompetent.
This is a bold statement, and opens the writer up to the same scrutiny as they are applying to the New Atheists. A discussion on Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris follows and then a series of closing statements to draw a more abstract definition of "reason" and then how the rest of the book will assist in support of the argument that reasoning is from God.
Lots in here to work with, but I am going to start with the statement "No reputable scholar doubts the existence of Jesus". What follows is nothing to back this up. So I started to do some research. It should scare the Christians amongst us how sketchy the evidence is, and I'm calling it evidence only out of...no, actually I can't think of a good "reason" to call it evidence.
11 April 2012
So, how will this Blog evolve
True Reason: Christian Responses to the Challenges of Atheism will be the main source of inspiration for this blog. So far, I have read the first chapter and am amazed at its paucity for truths, or unfounded logic.
Evolve is a useful way of thinking about the purpose. My current thinking is to look at each of the chapters in turn and discuss the merits of the "True Reason" that the authors have found.
Based on the first chapter, I think that this will be a long process. So be it. My apologies to Matt as his chapter is last, and while he has helped inspire me towards putting my thoughts (opinions) on "paper", he will not have the pleasure of my attention until the very end.
Of course my strategy may change as I move through this book. I will add posts of related topics as and when the feeling arises. And for the most part I will refrain from commenting on the state of society in North America, although the various commentators from that region do write some brilliant stuff, and frankly, I'm glad I don't live amongst it.
Any local (southern hemisphere) theist/atheist topic worthy of not will (hopefully) get a mention here.
So, that's the plan...
Evolve is a useful way of thinking about the purpose. My current thinking is to look at each of the chapters in turn and discuss the merits of the "True Reason" that the authors have found.
Based on the first chapter, I think that this will be a long process. So be it. My apologies to Matt as his chapter is last, and while he has helped inspire me towards putting my thoughts (opinions) on "paper", he will not have the pleasure of my attention until the very end.
Of course my strategy may change as I move through this book. I will add posts of related topics as and when the feeling arises. And for the most part I will refrain from commenting on the state of society in North America, although the various commentators from that region do write some brilliant stuff, and frankly, I'm glad I don't live amongst it.
Any local (southern hemisphere) theist/atheist topic worthy of not will (hopefully) get a mention here.
So, that's the plan...
06 April 2012
Dedication
Hi,
This blog entry is a dedication to the person(s) who motivated me to discuss the hypothesis of religion.
First. Matt and Madeleine Flannagan. Matt especially is holding himself up as a biblical scholar. Ok, I'm fine about that with the exceptions as it pertains to his beliefs. What mean by this, is that Matt ( and Madeleine ) can have there beliefs however if they are unsubstantiated then they deserve to be mocked.
Second. A women who will remain nameless, who I knew in my youth who decided to believe in Christianity.
Third. "The Hitch". What a loss! Just as I had found his writings, he was struct down with a terrible disease.
Fourth. Greta Christina. For providing an easily digested forum of thought. Her latest book," Why are atheists angry? 99 things that piss off the godless" helped me to find he words to how I was feeling.
While this isn't a complete list, it is ignition to get my contribution going.
By the way, I lead a happy, joyful life with my partner, my children, and her children. My work is stimulating, and my outside work life is full of fun activities.
This blog entry is a dedication to the person(s) who motivated me to discuss the hypothesis of religion.
First. Matt and Madeleine Flannagan. Matt especially is holding himself up as a biblical scholar. Ok, I'm fine about that with the exceptions as it pertains to his beliefs. What mean by this, is that Matt ( and Madeleine ) can have there beliefs however if they are unsubstantiated then they deserve to be mocked.
Second. A women who will remain nameless, who I knew in my youth who decided to believe in Christianity.
Third. "The Hitch". What a loss! Just as I had found his writings, he was struct down with a terrible disease.
Fourth. Greta Christina. For providing an easily digested forum of thought. Her latest book," Why are atheists angry? 99 things that piss off the godless" helped me to find he words to how I was feeling.
While this isn't a complete list, it is ignition to get my contribution going.
By the way, I lead a happy, joyful life with my partner, my children, and her children. My work is stimulating, and my outside work life is full of fun activities.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)