Ante Up!

[kumarei]

There really is no rational basis to not take Dr. Gomez at his word, but, then again, I have a neutral attitude by default, not a skeptical one.

As for other arguments, I think the historical arguments regarding the life, death, and resurrection of Christ to be very strong. Each new book I read verifies the remarkable historicity and integrity of the NT and of the history of the early Catholic Church. This is one area that I’m studying heavily right now.

The reason I’m not taking Dr Gomez at his word has nothing to do with whether or not I trust him as a person, it’s simply that I am aware that people are extremely fallible. There are a whole slew of biases that we have built into our head, so it’s hard for me to just take someone at their word.

That’s also the reason why the reports would need to be vetted by the greater scientific community for accuracy and methodology before I would accept them. It would also be preferable that all tests be carried out multiple times by different experts, without knowing the results that others have obtained.

As for the historical arguments, can you recommend any specific books? I’ve read Lee Strobel’s “The Case For Christ” and found it extremely wanting. In my mind, Strobel’s arguments fell extremely far from the mark. He seemed to rely on the idea that no one would ever give up their life for something that isn’t true, which is kind of nonsense.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

He seemed to rely on the idea that no one would ever give up their life for something that isn’t true, which is kind of nonsense.

Actually the argument is basically the idea that it is unreasonable to think that a group of people within that particular context would give up their lives for what they “know” to be false. This is to say that if we were talking about something else we would not seriously entertain that possibility because that’s not the usual psychological behaviour of people when it comes to motives, and we have no justification of attributing that behaviour to the people spoken of in the new testament. When it comes to understanding the root origins of Christianity and why people would die for Jesus, you have instead chosen to entertain an extremely unlikely possibility because you know that otherwise you would have to accept that Christianity is experientially and fundamentally rooted in the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ given that it would be unreasonable for people in that particular context to give their lives for what they knew to be falsehood perpetrated by a liar.

I think that this argument has merit once you understand the contextual history in which the Christ event took place.

 

[Windfish]

I confess I don’t much understand the RCC’s approach to miracles. They beatify someone because some deacon recovered from a back operation in the expected recovery timeframe - a truly unremarkable occurrence - yet sit on something like this which is potential dynamite.

Without further information, I really don’t know what to say.

The Church isn’t very secretive, she just doesn’t actively promote any miracle - the deposit of faith and the gift of faith are the real miracles that should draw people to repentance. Miracles can help, though.

It seems somewhat inconsistent, and it is indeed puzzling that the Sokólka ‘miracle’ was not emblazoned across the world’s press when it occurred.

Not really. This reminds me of an argument used by Jesus mythicists - they cite a long list of historians that “should” have written about Jesus. The misunderstanding is that, well, people only write about what is 1) within their sphere of interest and knowledge 2) within what they are capable of writing. The thing is, there are a lot of ordinary reasons why a news outlet wouldn’t report on miracles. But it’s a weak argument from silence, anyway, so I personally wouldn’t dwell on it.

Don’t forget that you have at least as much of a vested interest as Inocente and myself. Don’t mistake skepticism for narrow-mindedness or a desire for God to not exist. You have no particular moral high ground when it comes to interpreting the alleged evidence.

Again, not really. This is just one of several dozen other miracles I have researched, and I just happened to pick this one out from my bookmarks at random. In any case, my faith doesn’t rely on any given miracle except for the gift of faith.

You’re absolutely right though, the implications are huge. Which is precisely why we should take a skeptical, scientific approach to ensure that we don’t jump to the wrong conclusion.

I disagree. I think a skeptical attitude is the wrong hermeneutic since you can “debunk” or place doubt on anything, even the moonlanding (apparently, you didn’t get the joke, it’s an American past time to create conspiracy theories, and the moonlanding is a prime target) I think a more neutral and humble attitude is the way to go since you’ll be more prepared to accept what is true.

p.s. You’ve been in contact with Gomez? What happened?

It feels weird saying this, but I honestly cannot comment. I would write a letter if you could. We agree that the implications are ginormous, and I would go to the ends of the earth to find out more.

 

[inocente]

But you have a vested interest in remaining unconvinced since it would profoundly affect your Baptist views.

I’m intrigued as to how you know my Baptist views, or even what Baptist views might be, but let it pass. I’ve no vested interest whatsoever and would love to see a real miracle.

Your argument from silence, I really don’t have to tell you, is not really worthy of response. If I were in your position, I would do everything in my power to research the scientific investigation and get in contact with the lead investigator, Dr. Gomez.

Dr. Gomez may still be working on this but he made the decision to publish it by giving his lecture. He published it.

If there was anything in it then it would surely have been front page news. After all, Dr Zugibe would have made a reliable enough witness for the most skeptical reporter, and the implications would be astonishing. Now it may be I missed all this and the rest of the world is buzzing with it, but otherwise isn’t it common sense to be unconvinced?

Shimmy on over to UFOs, crop circles, apparitions, conspiracy theories and we’ll find the same kind of seductive reports that somehow didn’t set the world on fire. It’s not rocket science to be skeptical, and do I mean skeptical as opposed to cynical.

 

[Windfish]

inocente, it’s an argument from silence. As I said before, there are all sorts of ordinary reasons why news outlets wouldn’t report on any particular thing, let alone a miracle. It surprises me that you would even go that route.

 

[AntiTheist]

So, you are basically saying there is no real reason why somebody should be unhappy or happy, its all just made up.

Let’s be very clear: “happiness” and “unhappiness” are feelings. Feelings arise in response to situations. Different people are going to be made (varying degrees of) happy or unhappy by different situations. For example, someone might get called a bad name and have a hysterical hissy fit; someone (perhaps someone who’s a little better-adjusted) might get called a bad name and laugh it off.

There’s nothing objectively – outside of human consciousness – “happy” or “unhappy” about any particular situation. “Happy” and “unhappy” are labels that we put on various reactions to situations – the situations are, in and of themselves, neither happy nor unhappy.

Now, since human beings are constituted in similar ways, we can generalize about the kinds of things that most people typically find make them happy or unhappy. For example, most people would be unhappy about losing their job. Different people are going to be varying degrees of unhappy about such a situation, and some people might not be unhappy at all about the situation – there are some personality types, for example, that might find something exciting about the prospect of seeking a different career path. Conversely, there are some personality types so attached to routine that a major change like that may come close to killing them.

There is nothing – repeat, nothing – about the situation in and of itself that is “happy” or “unhappy.” Those emotions are reactions to situations, not qualities inherent in the situations themselves.

Realizing this fact – and actually experiencing it, yourself, on a day-to-day basis – is the first step toward pulling yourself out of the murky soup that most people wander around in, projecting their oh-so precious feelings onto the world around them.

Let’s stop there: do you agree with me thus far? A simple yes will suffice.

If you agree, then I’ll address more of that ridiculous post; if you disagree with anything that I’ve said, then there’s no sense in my going any further until we’ve discussed the disagreement.

 

[inocente]

inocente, it’s an argument from silence.

No, I think Gómez might be doing that. If anyone wants to contact him, here’s his facebook.

Dr Zugibe, the name he definitely says in the video, changes to Federico Stigibe of Columbia U on his facebook. Couldn’t spot any independent references to Stigibe, but did find Gómez on wikipedea. What’s that across the top of the page? “This article or section needs references that appear in an accredited publication, such as specialized journals, monographs, newspapers or reliable websites.”

 

[MindOverMatter2]

For example, someone might get called a bad name and have a hysterical hissy fit; someone (perhaps someone who’s a little better-adjusted) might get called a bad name and laugh it off.

What objective sense does it make to talk about better adjustment if we are just bags of chemicals? You keep slipping. You keep talking about the world in a teleological manner, as if there was an ought. We all know this deep down, but it seems that you are willing to suppress it.

There’s nothing objectively – outside of human consciousness – “happy” or “unhappy” about any particular situation.

So you cannot see why one would be sad that they had lost a loved one? You cannot see the meaning involved when one experiences that emotion? A person would call you either emotionally damaged or heartless for not seeing that.

“Happy” and “unhappy” are labels that we put on various reactions to situations – the situations are, in and of themselves, neither happy nor unhappy.

I never said that situations are in and of them selves unhappy; but “people” are meaningfully unhappy given an evidently bad situation. Situations are good and bad in relation to the fact that we are persons and not just bags of chemicals. You are of course assuming a particular world view. It seems to me that its mostly the case that we have a meaningful response to something occurring in reference to our objective natures as persons. If we know we are going to be attacked we naturally feel fear; at least most people with a healthy mind do. We are aware of human dignity because we have had the experience of it being undermined. Of course chemicals are never undermined, but a persons dignity can be. Of course, interpretation can change how we feel, but the emotional response is always meaningful in respect of that interpretation. If you find reason to be happy in respect of some kind of hope for the future, then you will be happy in an evidently bad situation, but you must also know happiness in reference to events and also your nature as a person in respect of those events before you can interpret events in relation to what will make us happy or unhappy. I don’t think its reasonable to assume that its an accident that we feel unhappy when our natures as persons is being undermined either physiologically or psychologically. Yes some people have the strength to not let it get to them by ignoring the fact that they are in some way being oppressed; but that evidently does not change the fact that they are being oppressed. If you are saying horrible things to undermine a persons sense of worth it is not unreasonable that they will feel unhappy about that; but if they know their objective self worth without doubt, then they know that when somebody says that their lives is no more valuable than donkey poo, that they are talking about their own ideological rubbish for there own self gratification. We are all insecure to varying degrees about various things, and any honest atheism is simply an expression of that insecurity. God is freedom from that insecurity. The Jews are not suddenly free from the evils of a death camp merely because they choose to ignore what is happening to them.

Its true that an interpretation can change how we feel about an event, but nobody in their right mind would consider it irrational that people felt despair and hopelessness at the holocaust when they were being pushed in to gas chambers. My experience of despair or unhappiness tells me that it is a meaningful and appropriate response to a situation where my life is in danger or my dignity as a person is being undermined by other persons, and one should note that many of theses emotions revolve around how we perceive our selves in terms of objective “worth” or “value”. Sadness gives emphasis to the fact that we lack happiness, and through happiness we-know that their is the possibility of fulfilment. If we see hope, we may very well be less afraid or less unhappy. But hope only makes sense if we already perceive life as more valuable than death. Emotions are not just an arbitrary response to a situation. They make meaningful connections to events in reference to our being persons of a particular worth and value greater than that which is is not a person. It makes sense of people who make life and death decisions and have a deep seated desire to be fulfilled in life. Where does that come from?

The point is, the existence of emotions make sense in a world that is interactive and objectively meaningful and was created to be that way. Being sad makes perfect sense when losing a loved one, being happy makes perfect sense in a world in which your life can be fulfilled. None of this makes any rational sense what’s so ever in terms of meaningless lifeless unconscious atoms being in a particular place at a particular time.

Experience cannot be quantified or understood in those terms. Worth, value, meaning; none of these things in principle can be quantified and yet we experience them.

So again, if you are so rational why cry over a bag of chemicals? What sense does it make for atoms to be unhappy. What sense does it make for atoms to be unfulfilled. It makes perfect sense in a Christian world in which we see that a person is more than a bag of chemicals; more than the sum of its parts. You say that emotions doesn’t make rational sense but that is only true in a world where meaningful emotions are reduced to unemotional and meaningless objects. Its not evident that this is the case. That’s the world you choose to believe in, but that’s not the world that I experience. Why ignore what emotions in general tell us about reality?

 

[AntiTheist]

So you cannot see why one would be sad that they had lost a loved one?

No, of course I can see why someone would be sad that he or she has lost a loved one. I can also see why someone might be relieved or even glad that a loved one has died. The sadness, the relief, the gladness – all of those are reactions to the situation.

We might, as a society, have a set idea that some reactions are more “appropriate” than others, but such ideas are just that – ideas, which are based on generalizations. Not all people react the same way to the same events.

You cannot see the meaning involved when one experiences that emotion?

Emotions are extremely meaningful to the people who experience them. They are not objectively meaningful. The universe doesn’t care if you’re crying your poor little heart out.

You are making the beginner’s mistake of projecting your precious little feelings onto the universe and assuming that just because something feels “meaningful” to you or feels reall good or really bad to you, then that means that there’s some metaphysical whatsamacallit that’s “really” meaningful for everybody or really good or bad for everybody.

You are muddying your own thinking, and I worry that you might be setting yourself up for a mental breakdown if you insist on making the universe conform to your precious thoughts, rather than attempting to see the universe as it is.

What sense does it make for atoms to be unhappy.

We’re not atoms – we are a particular combination of atoms that produces chemical impulses that we call thoughts and feelings, some of which we have labeled “happy” and “unhappy.”

You need to stop reading everything through this mental fog you’ve constructed for yourself.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Emotions are extremely meaningful to the people who experience them.

Emotions have meaning in and of themselves. We do not give them meaning.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

We’re not atoms – we are a particular combination of atoms that produces chemical impulses that we call thoughts and feelings, some of which we have labeled “happy” and “unhappy.”

In other-words you believe that we are just a bunch of atoms. You believe that an emotion is merely a grouping of atoms arranged in a particular manner, moving in a particular way, existing at a particular time.

It seems to me that you world-view is completely alien to human experience and is not expressive of the evidence. You make the fallacy of thinking a correlation necessitates synonymity. Experience, emotional or otherwise, is evidently different in nature to an arrangement of atoms, regardless of their correlation. You simply choose to ignore the difference.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

I can also see why someone might be relieved or even glad that a loved one has died.

That’s because they “think” some good is to come from it. Even if they are mistaken, the emotional response is still rationally, meaningfully, and teleologically connected to the event in question. The emotion in question is consistently serving a purpose, accept in cases were there is severe mental health issues and brain-damage, in which case the purpose of emotions would not actualise properly or meaningfully in respect of the many situations that human “persons” (not merely a bag of chemicals) find themselves in.

We might, as a society, have a set idea that some reactions are more “appropriate”

You have not really read or understood my rebuttal properly. You are making a straw-man of my argument. I used the word appropriate in a different context to the way you are using it here.

 

[AntiTheist]

Emotions have meaning in and of themselves. We do not give them meaning.

Provide evidence for this – other than your oh-so precious feelings.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Provide evidence for this – other than your oh-so precious feelings.

I shouldn’t have to. Its self evident that our sense of fear means fear, and love means love, and anger means anger, and moral guilt means moral guilt. Apart from the symbols by which we mark and distinguish these experiences we did not make up or create any of them. We simply have them, and under normal conditions, we have them not in an arbitrary way, but rather in a consistently meaningful manner insofar as our relationship towards other personal beings or objects are concerned. This is to say that given our actions towards other personal beings and their action towards us we have meaningful responses that our intrinsic to our personal natures.

These emotions express their meaning independent of our creative imaginations, and they are meaningfully responsive in the objective context of personal relations. In other words our emotions correspond meaningfully to beings existing outside our our imagination in terms of interactive response. My experience of emotions strongly suggest to me that they serve a purposeful function that cannot be reduced to physical parts. This is very teleological in terms of the meaningful purpose that emotions serve. That is to say that emotions, in terms of their meaning and existence, presuppose a purpose that goes beyond mere physical interactions. It is a purpose primed for personal interactions in which value and self worth play a central part. But physical objects do not act to express a sense of self worth and value and are not aware of such things. Individual atoms are not aware of fear, love, happiness, or un-fulfillment. Of course there is dna; but dna is not the author of its own meaning. It produces the words or commands by which it actualizes certain capacities, such as emotion, but it does not create the meaning by which those words or commands have a causal influence. Physics cannot create objective meaning or purpose. Yet we fined our selves, as persons, primed to express consistently meaningful emotions in terms our relationship to the world and the other personal beings we find in it, both physiologically and psychologically, exactly as if we were created to interact with a world that was in fact prepared for us. If this is truly an objectively meaningless world, why do these meaningful things exist if not to serve an objective and rational purpose? You play down emotions as fundamentally irrational and yet it is emotions themselves which inspire us to behave rationally. You have an emotional desire to think rationally and this is because you recognize that it will fulfill you objectively to do so.

Emotions or minds cannot be reduced to Non-minds or impersonal non-emotional things since insofar as they are actual they are expressions of an interactive awareness and they exist meaningfully only in that mode. You cannot have a square triangle since they are completely opposite in nature, so why think that non-minds or unconscious objects can be synonymous in actuality with minds and emotions, given a specific type complexity or physical structure? The quality that is human experience is inconsistent with physical explanations. It makes no rational or meaningful sense at all to speak of emotional experiences in terms being synonymous in nature to atoms being at a certain place in time moving in a certain way in correspondence with other atoms. I agree that there is evidently a “correlation”. But to move this beyond anything more than a relationship between two distinct types of nature (which is what it appears to be) seems to be an eager assumption of metaphysical-naturalism, which has no basis in fact or experience. It is seems evident to my experience that to be mindful of physical objects is to add something to physical objects; it transcends physical limits by having an idea of physics. What sense does it make to say that atoms feel guilty simply because they are moving in unity with other atoms? Emotional experience, and experience in general, clearly does not have the same qualitative nature as that of an atom or a grouping of atoms. This is evident to our experience, and to ignore one qualitative experience for another does not seem to be grounded in fact, but rather in ideology.

So again why ignore the nature of our experience?

Of course, in some radical turn of events i might be wrong; but i think i have a reasonable doubt that i am wrong. One things for sure; science cannot settle the matter.