Believing without direct verification

[Bradski]

Of course it matters. Scripture conveys the message in literal form
What doesn’t matter is whether 500 or really 55 people factually saw him. It’s not about precise headcounts. The witness of the community (Tradition) that is passed on in literal form is the durable thing.

You can accept the witness or reject it. If I used evidentiary proof as my standard for all truth, I would reject it also.

Then you have to ask yourself, if it wasn’t 500 people, and any reasonable investigation of the facts would indicate that the figure has been pulled out of a hat, WHY that figure has been used.

Surely a reasonable position would be that it is an exaggeration used to add weight to a particular view. This is so common a tactic as to not require durther explanation.

The implication is therefore that Paul thought that the story needed exaggeration to make it believable. That there was a dearth of facts available that would convince most people so he needed to add a little something in an attempt to make it more credible.

Notwithstanding that there are forum members who will argue that these 500 brethren are actual people. A fundamentalist view if ever there was one.

 

[Bradski]

And a couple of further thoughts…

This Is not equivalent to a talking snake or a global flood or burning bushes. All those things can be taken metaphorically. There’s a certain poetic license that everyone, except the most rabid fundamentalist, appreciates in these stories. But what Paul was talking about is meant to be taken as a fact.

He didn’t say ‘lots of people’. He didn’t imply a great many. He was very specific. Just like the politician who claims that he doesn’t need contributions because he worth billions. And if you know, almost as a fact, that he is not that rich, then you question his motives for that exaggeration. You might decide that anything he says is open to question. That you need to carefully check all comments he made. Because if he ain’t telling the truth in this case and he is exaggerating for effect, then whatever he has said might be untrue.

Isn’t that the view that a reasonable person would take?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

But what Paul was talking about is meant to be taken as a fact.

It is also interesting to compare the Synoptic Gospels, and the following verses:

1. Mark (1:32-34): That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. … And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. …
2. Matthew (8:16): That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.
3. Luke (4:40): Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them.

According to Mark, all were brought to Jesus and many were healed; according to Matthew, many were brought and all were healed; and according to Luke, all were brought and all were healed. The miracle keeps getting better all the time. A typical evolution of the legend. Of course these serious discrepancies are usually explained “away” that it is the discrepancy which makes the story believable… if there would be NO discrepancy, that would be “suspicious”. A wonderful example of: “heads, I win, tails, you lose” type of con game.

 

[Bradski]

It is also interesting to compare the Synoptic Gospels, and the following verses:

1. Mark (1:32-34): That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. … And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. …
2. Matthew (8:16): That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.
3. Luke (4:40): Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them.

According to Mark, all were brought to Jesus and many were healed; according to Matthew, many were brought and all were healed; and according to Luke, all were brought and all were healed. The miracle keeps getting better all the time. A typical evolution of the legend. Of course these serious discrepancies are usually explained “away” that it is the discrepancy which makes the story believable… if there would be NO discrepancy, that would be “suspicious”. A wonderful example of: “heads, I win, tails, you lose” type of con game.

Indeed.

‘I think that someone heard that He cured one or two people’ easily becomes ‘Apparently He cured a few people’ which doesn’t take long to become ‘He cured everybody’.

Again, this is such a common occurrence in everyday conversation about non-consequential matters where no-one is trying to convince anyone of anything that it needs no explanation or argument. It defies common sense to think that those with the undoubted aim of placing someone in the best possible light would not embellish and exaggerate any claims made about Him.

Are the people lying? I’d say no. They are subject, as are we all, to what I might call ‘verification creep’. ‘It could have been’ becomes ‘It must have been’ becomes ‘It was’.

It is all too easy to believe things that didn’t happen. How much easier is to believe things that you really want to have happened.

 

[Russell_SA]

And this is where the conversation stops. It is not because the skeptic wishes to stop it, it is because this particular believer is irrational. Is there a rational one out there, who can provide evidence for the miracles allegedly performed by Jesus?

I never find this line of questioning helpful. How can we check to see if what happened in reality 2000 years ago actually happened when we can not recreate the event now? Since you can’t, I conclude that the people at that time would feel justified in their believe as to what happened based on their current ability to analyze those events. Just as in our current era we have more tools to use to justify our conclusions of the observed reality. But are we, in this day and age, justified in believing that miracles and magic exists? That people who took their DnD priest character’s story a little too seriously or the lie of a knocked up lady 2000 years ago gets way out of hand, that this now changes the fundamentals of reality? I don’t believe so. If we have no way of determining the difference between a jar of “supernatural transcendent” marbles in a jar and a similar jar containing “nothing”, then the default position is to not believe that the first jar contains “supernatural transcendent” marbles because they do not manifest in reality in any detectable way or that channeling the powers of the “supernatural transcendent” marbles changes the outcome of an event any more than random chance will. Until we can tell a difference, spirituality is no different that the guy that keeps claiming he has a hot girlfriend in the next town that no one ever runs into.

 

[tonyrey]

I never find this line of questioning helpful. How can we check to see if what happened in reality 2000 years ago actually happened when we can not recreate the event now? Since you can’t, I conclude that the people at that time would feel justified in their believe as to what happened based on their current ability to analyze those events. Just as in our current era we have more tools to use to justify our conclusions of the observed reality. But are we, in this day and age, justified in believing that miracles and magic exists? That people who took their DnD priest character’s story a little too seriously or the lie of a knocked up lady 2000 years ago gets way out of hand, that this now changes the fundamentals of reality? I don’t believe so. If we have no way of determining the difference between a jar of “supernatural transcendent” marbles in a jar and a similar jar containing “nothing”, then the default position is to not believe that the first jar contains “supernatural transcendent” marbles because they do not manifest in reality in any detectable way or that channeling the powers of the “supernatural transcendent” marbles changes the outcome of an event any more than random chance will. Until we can tell a difference, spirituality is no different that the guy that keeps claiming he has a hot girlfriend in the next town that no one ever runs into.

The default position is the power of our minds which we don’t even need to verify! Everything else is based on introspection and inferences from sense data. Our primary datum and sole certainty is intangible and supernatural which explains why truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are far more precious than anything else. Impersonal particles are a hopelessly inadequate explanation of “the fundamentals of reality”. Like charity knowledge begins at home because we transcend nature with our hindsight, insight and insight. The simplest, most comprehensive, intelligible, coherent, consistent, probable, verifiable, fertile and valuable interpretation of existence is that it has a supernatural origin. That is the only rational foundation of human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which stem from the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven. In a Godless universe nothing makes sense…

 

[tonyrey]

It is all too easy to believe things that didn’t happen. How much easier is to believe things that you really want to have happened.

“you really want to have happened” = Ad hominem…

With equal facility one could say:

“How much easier is to disbelieve things you really don’t want to have happened.”

Some events confer obligations…

 

[tonyrey]

It is also interesting to compare the Synoptic Gospels, and the following verses:

1. Mark (1:32-34): That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. … And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. …
2. Matthew (8:16): That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.
3. Luke (4:40): Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them. According to Mark, all were brought to Jesus and many were healed; according to Matthew, many were brought and all were healed; and according to Luke, all were brought and all were healed. The miracle keeps getting better all the time. A typical evolution of the legend. Of course these serious discrepancies are usually explained “away” that it is the discrepancy which makes the story believable… if there would be NO discrepancy, that would be “suspicious”. A wonderful example of: “heads, I win, tails, you lose” type of con game.

To expect all witnesses to concur on all or very few details is a “heads I win, tails I win” type of con game. How does one determine the precise extent to which eye-witnesses should agree?

 

[tonyrey]

Then you have to ask yourself, if it wasn’t 500 people, and any reasonable investigation of the facts would indicate that the figure has been pulled out of a hat, WHY that figure has been used.

Surely a reasonable position would be that it is an exaggeration used to add weight to a particular view. This is so common a tactic as to not require durther explanation.

The implication is therefore that Paul thought that the story needed exaggeration to make it believable. That there was a dearth of facts available that would convince most people so he needed to add a little something in an attempt to make it more credible.

Notwithstanding that there are forum members who will argue that these 500 brethren are actual people. A fundamentalist view if ever there was one.

To imply that St Paul was deliberately trying to deceive everyone is an unfounded accusation belied by the fact that he was a strict adherent to the Law and after his conversion he was prepared to be imprisoned and executed for his faith. He was no fool and only a fool is prepared to die for a pack of lies…

 

[Russell_SA]

The default position is the power of our minds which we don’t even need to verify! Everything else is based on introspection and inferences from sense data. Our primary datum and sole certainty is intangible and supernatural which explains why truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are far more precious than anything else. Impersonal particles are a hopelessly inadequate explanation of “the fundamentals of reality”. Like charity knowledge begins at home because we transcend nature with our hindsight, insight and insight. The simplest, most comprehensive, intelligible, coherent, consistent, probable, verifiable, fertile and valuable interpretation of existence is that it has a supernatural origin. That is the only rational foundation of human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which stem from the teaching of Jesus that we are all children of the same Father in heaven. In a Godless universe nothing makes sense…

I’ll take that as a declaration of what you believe, but it doesn’t have any explanatory power that is falsifiable or able to remove your own personal biasness. That’s the great thing about using reality as a reference point first before forming logical conclusions. Reality will tell you that you are still wrong, regardless of how you feel about your logical conclusions. That’s the problem with using logic first and then going to look for what you want in reality. It’s cart before the horse problem. If all you can infer that an idea A is 2 things and idea B is the same 2 things, then it is logically correct to say that A=B, but once you actually can investigate, in reality, what A and B are, you may find that your inferences are not even true about what A and B are. So at the beginning of the experiment your label of A and B made A logically equal to B, but you were actually FACTUALLY wrong about what A and B are. Your ignorance of A and B changes once you can actually investigate A and B in reality. This is where the idea of “supernatural” falls into play here. You are inferring that supernaturalism exists without being able to falsify that assumption through testing or detection in any way that is any different that it just not being there at all. If that is the bar for you to believe that supernaturalism exists for you, that’s fine. However, it is not for a lot of other people. We do not come to conclusions about reality that way, we never will. It’s not part of our filter for understanding the world. Once we can test for it and show that it manifests in reality in some detectable way, then it becomes part of reality, not a moment sooner. To us, it is immoral and unethical to say otherwise because there is no way to tell the difference between supernaturalism being there and not being there. So the default position is to not believe that it is there.

 

[Bradski]

To expect all witnesses to concur on all or very few details is a “heads I win, tails I win” type of con game. How does one determine the precise extent to which eye-witnesses should agree?

These are second hand reports at best, written decades after the events. They are not eyevwitness accounts.

And if they were independent reports (they aren’t) and if they then matched (they don’t), then it would lend them some degree of credibility which they don’t have.

With equal facility one could say:

“How much easier is to disbelieve things you really don’t want to have happened.”

One could indeed say that as well. I’m glad you agree it’s an easy thing to do.

 

[tonyrey]

Then using sound interpretation and exegesis, please tell me how you understand what the passage in question actually says.

Do you, as others have done, take it to mean that the risen Chriat was literally seen by 500 people?

I’ve got an awful feeling that you are going to tell me that it doesn’t matter.

If you were an eye-witness of a public event would you take a head count before describing it - as if it is vitally important?

 

[tonyrey]

*To expect all witnesses to concur on all or very few details is a “heads I win, tails I win” type of con game. How does one determine the precise extent to which eye-witnesses should agree? *

In those days eye-witness accounts were the standard form of information and handed down far more accurately than today because many people were illiterate or had no access to written reports.

And if they were independent reports (they aren’t) and if they then matched (they don’t), then it would lend them some degree of credibility which they don’t have.

What is the evidence that they are not independent reports or have absolutely no degree of credibility? What standards are you using to make that decision?

With equal facility one could say:

“How much easier is to disbelieve things you really don’t want to have happened.”

One could indeed say that as well. I’m glad you agree it’s an easy thing to do.

In other words both arguments are worthless - as one might expect from an ad hominem…

 

[Bradski]

If you were an eye-witness of a public event would you take a head count before describing it - as if it is vitally important?

There was no head count. If there was it would actually be more credible. Maybe it was 20
Maybe 25. Big deal. Who cares. But the reports actually contradict each other.

Some were called.
All were called.

Some were cured.
All were cured.

They are different claims. Like these:

A plane crashed and all the passengers were killed.
A plane crashed and some of the passengers were killed.

At least one of those statements is wrong. At least one of the witnesses who passed on the information to whoever reported it either didn’t see it, or was given incorrect information herself or just made it up.

 

[tonyrey]

The default position is the power of our minds

What I believe is irrelevant…

…but it doesn’t have any explanatory power that is falsifiable

Does everything you believe have “explanatory power that is falsifiable”? Do you apply scientific methods to make all your personal decisions?

.

… or able to remove your own personal biasness.

Ad hominem. Are you completely objective in your interpretation of reality?

We do not come to conclusions about reality that way, we never will. It’s not part of our filter for understanding the world. Once we can test for it and show that it manifests in reality in some detectable way, then it becomes part of reality, not a moment sooner.

Who are “we”?

To us, it is immoral and unethical to say otherwise because there is no way to tell the difference between supernaturalism being there and not being there. So the default position is to not believe that it is there.

You are ignoring my statements:

"The default position is the power of our minds which we don’t even need to verify! Everything else is based on introspection and **inferences **from sense data. Our primary datum and sole certainty is intangible and supernatural which explains why truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love are far more precious than anything else. Impersonal particles are a hopelessly inadequate explanation of “the fundamentals of reality”.

Reality will tell you that you are still wrong…

What is reality in your opinion? Scientifically detectable phenomena?

…regardless of how you feel about your logical conclusions.

Aren’t your conclusions logical?

That’s the problem with using logic first and then going to look for what you want in reality.

My starting point is not logic but **the power of our minds.
**Do you reject that fact?

It’s cart before the horse problem. If all you can infer that an idea A is 2 things and idea B is the same 2 things, then it is logically correct to say that A=B, but once you actually can investigate, in reality, what A and B are, you may find that your inferences are not even true about what A and B are. So at the beginning of the experiment your label of A and B made A logically equal to B, but you were actually FACTUALLY wrong about what A and B are. Your ignorance of A and B changes once you can actually investigate A and B in reality. This is where the idea of “supernatural” falls into play here. You are inferring that supernaturalism exists without being able to falsify that assumption through testing or detection in any way that is any different that it just not being there at all. If that is the bar for you to believe that supernaturalism exists for you, that’s fine. However, it is not for a lot of other people.

Precisely the same objection can be applied to naturalism (materialism, physicalism, positivism, etc)

We do not come to conclusions about reality that way, we never will.

Who are “we”? Materialists, atheists, scientists, sceptics or just those who share your opinion?

It’s not part of our filter for understanding the world. Once we can test for it and show that it manifests in reality in some detectable way, then it becomes part of reality, not a moment sooner. To us, it is immoral and unethical…

On what is “our” (unspecified) filter for understanding the world based?
Science? If so what is science based on?

to say otherwise because there is no way to tell the difference between supernaturalism being there and not being there. So the default position is to not believe that it is there.

The default position is to believe in our intangible mental power and activity without which we would know precisely nothing about anything!

 

[tonyrey]

There was no head count. If there was it would actually be more credible. Maybe it was 20
Maybe 25. Big deal. Who cares.

The issue is 500…

But the reports actually contradict each other.

Some were called.
All were called.

Some were cured.
All were cured.

They are different claims. Like these:

A plane crashed and all the passengers were killed.
A plane crashed and some of the passengers were killed.

At least one of those statements is wrong. At least one of the witnesses who passed on the information to whoever reported it either didn’t see it, or was given incorrect information herself or just made it up.

According to this argument there has to be absolute unanimity for an account to be true yet the larger the number of observers the more likely it is for some to be mistaken or even sceptical at the outset. In such cases it is more reasonable to be open-minded and consider the context in which these events occurred and the implications of the belief that they are false. Is it likely that an international organisation based on human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which has lasted for more than two thousand years is derived from a pack of lies, superstition and/or self-deception? :ehh:

 

[Bradski]

The issue is 500…

According to this argument there has to be absolute unanimity for an account to be true yet the larger the number of observers the more likely it is for some to be mistaken or even sceptical at the outset. In such cases it is more reasonable to be open-minded and consider the context in which these events occurred and the implications of the belief that they are false. Is it likely that an international organisation based on human rights and the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity which has lasted for more than two thousand years is derived from a pack of lies, superstition and/or self-deception? :ehh:

The issue is not 500. See post 83. We are talking about the people who were brought to Jesus and were cured.

And again, we are not talking about a numerical discrepancy. We are talking about reports that contradict each other. That do not agree with each other. That say different things.

 

[goout]

The issue is not 500. See post 83. We are talking about the people who were brought to Jesus and were cured.

And again, we are not talking about a numerical discrepancy. We are talking about reports that contradict each other. That do not agree with each other. That say different things.

Oh my gosh. Contradiction!
what are we to do…
All is lost. I can’t cook it in my test tube, and I can’t find the only true version of events on abc.com.
All is for naught.

 

[Bradski]

Oh my gosh. Contradiction!
what are we to do…

We treat them as being less than reliable.

You do this in everyday life when it comes to important matters. Why not here?

 

[inocente]

It is also interesting to compare the Synoptic Gospels, and the following verses:

1. Mark (1:32-34): That evening, at sundown, they brought to him all who were sick or possessed with demons. … And he healed many who were sick with various diseases, and cast out many demons. …
2. Matthew (8:16): That evening they brought to him many who were possessed with demons; and he cast out the spirits with a word, and healed all who were sick.
3. Luke (4:40): Now when the sun was setting, all those who had any that were sick with various diseases brought them to him; and he laid his hands on every one of them and healed them.

According to Mark, all were brought to Jesus and many were healed; according to Matthew, many were brought and all were healed; and according to Luke, all were brought and all were healed. The miracle keeps getting better all the time. A typical evolution of the legend. Of course these serious discrepancies are usually explained “away” that it is the discrepancy which makes the story believable… if there would be NO discrepancy, that would be “suspicious”. A wonderful example of: “heads, I win, tails, you lose” type of con game.

It’s the opposite, the first account makes by far the biggest claim.

The verse you omitted with “…” in Mark says “And the whole city was gathered together at the door”. That’s the only account which claims everyone in the entire town was a witness. Matthew only refers to a crowd, and Luke doesn’t say. The earliest account makes the biggest, not the smallest claim.

The all/many thing is surely pedantic anyway, as none of those accounts say Jesus failed to cure anyone he set out to cure. By all means try to find discrepancies, but at least make them substantive and real .