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
Showing posts with label Chptr-1. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Chptr-1. Show all posts
24 April 2012
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
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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)