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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)