It is all about evidence

[Lion_IRC]

Lion IRC;11558543:

Reporting evidence/data of shared experience is not an ad populam/numeram

fallacy.

If it were, then you have committed the same fallacy in your thread/poll topic here;
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=847574

When multiple attestation occurs of the same event or experience, that is not anecdote. It is statistical data which corroborates the event.

I would have posted a couple of extra questions to you Jewel34 but I see you are recently banned.
I noticed too. But all the same if you have info that you think could be to the advantage of those that come along later in the future and read this thread please do post it.

I was going to ask (rhetorically I guess now,) whether the newspapers constitute hearsay evidence when they report, for example, that a man landed on the moon. The astronaut didn’t write the article in which they were quoted. The astronaut didn’t edit the article.
The astronaut didn’t start up the printing press.

And so when I read about something stated as fact in the newspaper, often, the only corroboration I have is other newspapers reporting the same thing. (That’s what Jewel34 called argumentum ad numeram.)

And so when we read the extraordinary testimony of what it was like to land on the moon, we have to take the reporters word for it that;
A) They are accurately reporting the words they heard come out of the astronauts mouth.
B) The astronaut actually did go to the moon and land on it – as opposed to having an oxygen-deprived hallucination of the event.

I was also going to ask about the oral transmission of evidence in instances where there is a lack of technology such as mobile phones and laptops and the ONLY way you can quickly share evidence is verbally. Why should all (ancient) oral testimony transmitted from person to person be dismissed or discounted when, as we can see in our internet age of instant communication, there is no compelling logic that such technology necessarily correlates to TRUTH of information.

Or to use another example, what of the (ancient) person who is giving the eyewitness testimony on their death-bed or physically too frail to write and relies on a second person to pass on the information? Or when the story is originally received in one language and needs translation from say…Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek?

What is the reasoning used by skeptics to assert that such “second-hand”, translated, transmitted testimony is untrustworthy?

 

[Gorgias]

I do military subjects.If you compare the Synoptic Gospels to John, you’d hardly know you were talking about the same guy.

Ever seen the various works on Patton? Different perspectives, same guy…

 

[Linusthe2nd]

ThinkingSapien;11557813:

I don’t think that is what s/he is asserting.

Interestingly enough it does seem that if you had a high enough mass of simple materials (water being composed of hydrogen and oxygen, fox example) in a close enough area it will undergo changes into other substances. But stellar nucleosynthesis may be far outside the topic area of this thread.

Knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis doesn’t require faith. But it does require evidence!

I can’t wait. Prove to me that it can create anything or that it has. I don’t believe you can.
It is just something you saw on U-Tube, etc. What is at stake here is the self-sufficiency of the universe and its ability to account for the causality of the entire history of its existence and its present teleological orderliness. If you cannot prove it, yet accept it, then you life by faith and have no justification for critisizing those who believe in Divine Revelation.

Linus2nd

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think on further reflection that I get it. You’re saying that Pascal’s argument doesn’t establish that God exists, but it proves that we should believe in God whether He exists or not? And you’re saying that atheists are “threatened” by this argument? How? I find more that they are insulted by the idea that they should believe in God out of self-interest rather than a love of truth. And I think they are honoring God by that reaction.

Because he gets rid of the crass appeal to fear and self-interest found in Pascal’s version, and the horrible language about dulling one’s critical faculties by application of holy water, etc. (Pascal was making a valid point about the relationship between practice and belief, and I get that he liked to put things outrageously, but the way he put it is still scandalous)

James also fleshes out the philosophical underpinnings of the argument. The point isn’t that if you make the wrong choice you will go to hell, but that since absolute certainty isn’t possible (in deference to Aquinas and Vatican I, I will qualify this by saying “for most of us with regard to the existence of God, and for everyone with regard to the specific claims of the Christian faith which can be known only through revelation”) it is legitimate to choose among “live options” based on such considerations as the practical value of a particular option in living a good and joyful life.

William Abraham further develops the point in his Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion with his concept of “soft rationalism,” whereby reason plays a role but you can’t simply weigh the logical arguments on each side and come to a definitive, obviously correct conclusion. Rather, important decisions are always the result of a vast array of factors, including deductive and inductive logic, intuition, etc. There’s nothing wrong with that.

Edwin

Excuse me for saying I just don’t find you to be logical or fair toward Pascal’s argument.

The argument fares well, and all the more so with people who know they are approaching death (I’ve seen it happen with atheists in my own family). Pascal asks them to take seriously the choice they have made against God. If you seriously think that a person who chooses to be an atheist is being honest with himself, and that God will reward him for his honesty, you are in a horrible nightmare and twilight zone of theology. If I misread you, please explain why.

Perhaps a few words from Jesus will straighten you out?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

It doesn’t get more clarified than that. Do you dispute those words? Is Jesus just exercising his mouth to produce a “crass appeal to fear and self-interest”?

 

[Area_Man]

Area Man;11557989:

I can’t wait. Prove to me that it can create anything or that it has. I don’t believe you can.
It is just something you saw on U-Tube, etc. What is at stake here is the self-sufficiency of the universe and its ability to account for the causality of the entire history of its existence and its present teleological orderliness. If you cannot prove it, yet accept it, then you life by faith and have no justification for critisizing those who believe in Divine Revelation.

Linus2nd

What I said was “Knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis doesn’t require faith. But it does require evidence!”

I am without knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis (I had to look it up.) I’m also without belief of anything to do with stellar nucleosynthesis. What I believe about stellar nucleosynthesis has no bearing on the objective truth of any of the claims it makes. When it comes to objective claims, I’m far less interested in what someone believes and why they believe it. I want to hear what they know and how they know it.

 

[MPat]

If I was writing the book I would try to find other sources to settle the issue.

Very good. Likewise, in case of Gospel accounts you could look at other books of the Bible, at the writings of Fathers of the Church, at the apocryphal writings, at the philosophical arguments… Or you could become an archaeologist and look for more ancient writings. There are numerous pieces of evidence waiting for examination.

And that is a reasonable way to look at things (as opposed to the approach advocated by the original post, which would just ignore all that evidence).

I would at least say that the sources are not conclusive and portray very different versions of events.

You could afford to do so in case of Third Servile War. But in case of Gospels, you have to make a decision, even if evidence is not full. For example: will you go to Mass this Sunday, or will you stay at home…?

But then again, I don’t have an agenda in proving the incarnate God. I do military subjects.

The point is that it is unreasonable to act as if Gospels were uniquely unreliable, when, at the very least, the contrary case can also be made rather easily.

If you compare the Synoptic Gospels to John, you’d hardly know you were talking about the same guy.

Aren’t you exaggerating a little…?

Anyway, the differences have a simple explanation: John knew what other writers wrote and didn’t want to repeat all of that once again. Now you can look for evidence supporting or disproving this explanation.

 

[Contarini]

Excuse me for saying I just don’t find you to be logical or fair toward Pascal’s argument.

The argument fares well, and all the more so with people who know they are approaching death (I’ve seen it happen with atheists in my own family). Pascal asks them to take seriously the choice they have made against God. If you seriously think that a person who chooses to be an atheist is being honest with himself, and that God will reward him for his honesty, you are in a horrible nightmare and twilight zone of theology. If I misread you, please explain why.

I don’t think that this is necessarily true. But it may be under certain circumstances.

Appealing to fear will fill the Church with dishonest cowards. Is that really what you want?

An atheist who clings to what he believes to be truth in the face of possible damnation is honoring God. Yes. I am not saying that that’s what atheists are doing necessarily. People are sinful, and many atheists may be atheists out of pride or other sinful motives. Most of them, like most people, probably have very mixed motives. But that doesn’t justify Christians in appealing to their baser motives against what is more honorable.

I love Pascal, but he goofed on this one.

Perhaps a few words from Jesus will straighten you out?

“Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father.” Matthew 10:32-33

“He who believes and is baptized will be saved; he who does not believe will be condemned.” Mark 16:16

It doesn’t get more clarified than that. Do you dispute those words? Is Jesus just exercising his mouth to produce a “crass appeal to fear and self-interest”?

No. Jesus is talking to people who are confronted with Him in person and are rejecting Him. Religious people who are quite sure that they are God’s favorites. He’s telling them that without living faith in Him their piety is worthless.

That is a message we all need to hear. It is not an excuse for looking down on others and judging them. When we do that, we are becoming like Jesus’ opponents.

Edwin

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I don’t think that this is necessarily true. But it may be under certain circumstances.

Appealing to fear will fill the Church with dishonest cowards. Is that really what you want?

An atheist who clings to what he believes to be truth in the face of possible damnation is honoring God. Yes. I am not saying that that’s what atheists are doing necessarily. People are sinful, and many atheists may be atheists out of pride or other sinful motives. Most of them, like most people, probably have very mixed motives. But that doesn’t justify Christians in appealing to their baser motives against what is more honorable.

I love Pascal, but he goofed on this one.

No. Jesus is talking to people who are confronted with Him in person and are rejecting Him. Religious people who are quite sure that they are God’s favorites. He’s telling them that without living faith in Him their piety is worthless.

That is a message we all need to hear. It is not an excuse for looking down on others and judging them. When we do that, we are becoming like Jesus’ opponents.

Edwin

I’m afraid we once again will have to agree to disagree. Jesus was never crass. When he threatened he meant what he said. You don’t get wiggle room on this one, and Pascal doesn’t give you any either.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I was going to ask (rhetorically I guess now,) whether the newspapers constitute hearsay evidence when they report, for example, that a man landed on the moon. The astronaut didn’t write the article in which they were quoted. The astronaut didn’t edit the article.
The astronaut didn’t start up the printing press.

I’ve got mixed feelings about news sources and would say they are hearsay.

In the past year there are two incidents of which I recall that contribute to this feeling. In one there was an incident at the entrance to my parent’s neighborhood that made the news, only what they shared on the news is not quite what happened. I also observed a court case earlier this year in which there was an incident. It was reported on the news but they got the sequence of events wrong which got across a story that was different than what occurred. I’ve observed other instances of the news sharing what was not quite truth. When I was in high school my mom walked into a school facility for a musical performance by the students and a news crew recorded her walking in and used it as footage in a story about parents coming to protest something the previous day. A friend was question by the GBI because her manager had been killed by drowning while out of town. Though on the news the story was this person had a heart attack.

The moon landing is an event of personal interest to me. I went to go see one of the Saturn V rockets that is said to have been the launch vehicle on 1 October 2013. Unfortunately the USA government shut down on the day I visited (which was also NASA’s 50th anniversary). I could not get access to the building that is said to house the vehicle. Though I have found one of the F-1 Engines (those things are huge!). Hopefully better outcome in 3 weeks.

And so when I read about something stated as fact in the newspaper, often, the only corroboration I have is other newspapers reporting the same thing. (That’s what Jewel34 called argumentum ad numeram.)

That’s correct. And it’s not easy to tell whether or not the information printed is true and accurate. When one of those sources makes a mistake the others may replicate it. One could easily get the impression that I think one should never believe the news. This isn’t what I’m declaring. But it is a form of hearsay and otherwise unsubstantiated information can spread through such sources.

And so when we read the extraordinary testimony of what it was like to land on the moon, we have to take the reporters word for it that;
A) They are accurately reporting the words they heard come out of the astronauts mouth.
B) The astronaut actually did go to the moon and land on it – as opposed to having an oxygen-deprived hallucination of the event.

One could also not take the word of the reporter alone and work towards corroborating the report (or finding contradictions to it). Though I wouldn’t expect most people to dedicate the time, energy, and resources to doing that since it’s of little to no consequence if some one believes the moon landing story in their everyday life.

I was also going to ask about the oral transmission of evidence in instances where there is a lack of technology such as mobile phones and laptops and the ONLY way you can quickly share evidence is verbally. Why should all (ancient) oral testimony transmitted from person to person be dismissed or discounted when, as we can see in our internet age of instant communication, there is no compelling logic that such technology necessarily correlates to TRUTH of information.

I wouldn’t suggest dismissing ancient testimony outright. My attitude towards it isn’t much different than the moon landing example. If one finds it of consequence and has the time/resources/energy/interest to do so, work towards corroborating or contradicting the claim. A relevant challenge that the OP seemed to be emphasizing though is how does one corroborate supernatural claims?

What is the reasoning used by skeptics to assert that such “second-hand”, translated, transmitted testimony is untrustworthy?

It’s not a view that is limited to skeptics. For example, Courts of law generally don’t allow it (except under certain circumstances). As I understand skepticism provided that the person is not a radical skeptic (radical skeptics more or less take the position that knowledge is impossible) their position is that any of us could be mistaken about our conclusions. With an uncorroborated story there could be difficulty in determining whether or not testimony is a correct reflection of what really happened. If there’s physical evidence left that goes with the testimony while it is still possible that something about it is wrong one can gain higher confidence if there’s something left behind that can be investigated further.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Aren’t you exaggerating a little…?

Anyway, the differences have a simple explanation: John knew what other writers wrote and didn’t want to repeat all of that once again. Now you can look for evidence supporting or disproving this explanation.

I think he’s exaggerating a lot.

 

[Contarini]

I’m afraid we once again will have to agree to disagree. Jesus was never crass. When he threatened he meant what he said. You don’t get wiggle room on this one, and Pascal doesn’t give you any either.

Of course Jesus wasn’t crass. I don’t think we have wiggle room either. When Jesus condemns those who judge others and think that they are more righteous than others, I take it seriously. Or try to. I fail a great deal.

Believing in Jesus isn’t about opinions. It’s about a loving, obedient response to what has been made known to us. You and I are not in the position to know what has or has not been made known to an atheist. Have they met Jesus and rejected Him, or have they only met false idols? Only God knows (even the atheists may not know).

Edwin

 

[Portofino]

I was going to ask (rhetorically I guess now,) whether the newspapers constitute hearsay evidence when they report, for example, that a man landed on the moon. The astronaut didn’t write the article in which they were quoted. The astronaut didn’t edit the article.
The astronaut didn’t start up the printing press.

And so when I read about something stated as fact in the newspaper, often, the only corroboration I have is other newspapers reporting the same thing. (That’s what Jewel34 called argumentum ad numeram.)

And so when we read the extraordinary testimony of what it was like to land on the moon, we have to take the reporters word for it that;
A) They are accurately reporting the words they heard come out of the astronauts mouth.
B) The astronaut actually did go to the moon and land on it – as opposed to having an oxygen-deprived hallucination of the event.

I was also going to ask about the oral transmission of evidence in instances where there is a lack of technology such as mobile phones and laptops and the ONLY way you can quickly share evidence is verbally. Why should all (ancient) oral testimony transmitted from person to person be dismissed or discounted when, as we can see in our internet age of instant communication, there is no compelling logic that such technology necessarily correlates to TRUTH of information.

Or to use another example, what of the (ancient) person who is giving the eyewitness testimony on their death-bed or physically too frail to write and relies on a second person to pass on the information? Or when the story is originally received in one language and needs translation from say…Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek?

What is the reasoning used by skeptics to assert that such “second-hand”, translated, transmitted testimony is untrustworthy?

I think the content of what is being claimed also has a bearing on one’s judgment as to what constitutes an appropriate degree of skepticism, even if there is an irreducibly subjective element in assessing this. Example:

A: “I was born in Cleveland.”
B: “OK, you were born in Cleveland.”
A: “Ha! I wasn’t really born in Cleveland!”
B: "OK, you weren’t born in Cleveland. Being born in Cleveland was an ordinary enough occurrence and I didn’t see any particular reason to doubt you.

Compare that with (and let’s assume that interlocuter A was telling the truth and was, in fact, born in Cleveland):

A: “I was never a child; I came to this earth fully grown.”
B: “Really?..”
A: “Hey, you believed me when I said I was from Cleveland (and I was born in Cleveland). Why don’t you believe me when I tell you I was never a child? That’s a double-standard. If you believed my testimony regarding the first, why don’t you believe my testimony regarding the second?”

Or let’s now assume that interlocuter A was pulling my leg when he said he was from Cleveland, as per the original dialogue above. So he says:

A: “I was never a child; I came to this earth fully grown.”
B: “Really? That’s nice. More power to you!”
A: “What – you don’t believe me?”
B: “Your word wasn’t reliable regarding the place of your birth, which is an ordinary phenomenon. Why should I take your word for it regarding an extra-ordinary phenomenon?”

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’ve got mixed feelings about news sources and would say they are hearsay.

In the past year there are two incidents of which I recall that contribute to this feeling. In one there was an incident at the entrance to my parent’s neighborhood that made the news, only what they shared on the news is not quite what happened. I also observed a court case earlier this year in which there was an incident. It was reported on the news but they got the sequence of events wrong which got across a story that was different than what occurred. I’ve observed other instances of the news sharing what was not quite truth. When I was in high school my mom walked into a school facility for a musical performance by the students and a news crew recorded her walking in and used it as footage in a story about parents coming to protest something the previous day. A friend was question by the GBI because her manager had been killed by drowning while out of town. Though on the news the story was this person had a heart attack.

The moon landing is an event of personal interest to me. I went to go see one of the Saturn V rockets that is said to have been the launch vehicle on 1 October 2013. Unfortunately the USA government shut down on the day I visited (which was also NASA’s 50th anniversary). I could not get access to the building that is said to house the vehicle. Though I have found one of the F-1 Engines (those things are huge!). Hopefully better outcome in 3 weeks.

That’s correct. And it’s not easy to tell whether or not the information printed is true and accurate. When one of those sources makes a mistake the others may replicate it. One could easily get the impression that I think one should never believe the news. This isn’t what I’m declaring. But it is a form of hearsay and otherwise unsubstantiated information can spread through such sources.

The difference is that the Gospels make implicit and explicit claims to be eyewitness accounts by or from individuals who have just seen the one human being who they were convinced could have been God, resurrected from the dead and having appeared to them.

What they were recording was not a news story or moonlanding, This was monumentally consequential because God himself had walked with them and had left them to carry out a mission for which they had been hand picked. They had every reason to “get things right” and had been personally mentored by God himself, or so they understood, for three years to do so. This was not Joe Schmoe reporting on Channel Four.

 

[Contarini]

I think the content of what is being claimed also has a bearing on one’s judgment as to what constitutes an appropriate degree of skepticism, even if there is an irreducibly subjective element in assessing this. Example:

A: “I was born in Cleveland.”
B: “OK, you were born in Cleveland.”
Why don’t you believe me when I tell you I was never a child? That’s a double-standard. If you believed my testimony regarding the first, why don’t you believe my testimony regarding the second?"

Or let’s now assume that interlocuter A was pulling my leg when he said he was from Cleveland, as per the original dialogue above. So he says:

A: “I was never a child; I came to this earth fully grown.”
B: “Really? That’s nice. More power to you!”
A: “What – you don’t believe me?”
B: “Your word wasn’t reliable regarding the place of your birth, which is an ordinary phenomenon. Why should I take your word for it regarding an extra-ordinary phenomenon?”

Right, and that’s why the generally convincing nature of the view of the world implied in religious claims is relevant.

By ordinary standards of historical evidence, the evidence for the resurrection is pretty good (the virginal conception is another matter, and I don’t think anyone would accept it except because they accept the authority of the Church in general). We have multiple independent accounts written within a few decades of the event. It’s better evidence than we have for a lot of ancient events (someone earlier suggested that it would be absurd to say that the evidence for Jesus’ miracles is as good as that for Hannibal crossing the Alps-I’m not so sure, and I do know that the evidence is a lot better than the evidence for most of the things commonly accepted as true about Alexander the Great’s exploits, for which our sources were written centuries after the events and may well be engaging in propaganda for the Roman Empire using Alexander as a kind of mythic prefigurement). But obviously if you don’t find the Christian narrative convincing or appealing as a whole, you won’t be too impressed by this. There are all sorts of ways in which the story could be false or distorted. It’s not knock-down proof by any means. But for those of us who find the general narrative convincing, for whom Christianity makes sense of the world, the historical evidence for the resurrection looks really good (good enough to accept that the community that came out of this event may be worth trusting even on matters for which the evidence isn’t nearly as good, like the virginal conception or for that matter the perpetual virginity).

Edwin

 

[oldcelt]

Right, and that’s why the generally convincing nature of the view of the world implied in religious claims is relevant.

**By ordinary standards of historical evidence, the evidence for the resurrection is pretty good **(the virginal conception is another matter, and I don’t think anyone would accept it except because they accept the authority of the Church in general). We have multiple independent accounts written within a few decades of the event. It’s better evidence than we have for a lot of ancient events (someone earlier suggested that it would be absurd to say that the evidence for Jesus’ miracles is as good as that for Hannibal crossing the Alps-I’m not so sure, and I do know that the evidence is a lot better than the evidence for most of the things commonly accepted as true about Alexander the Great’s exploits, for which our sources were written centuries after the events and may well be engaging in propaganda for the Roman Empire using Alexander as a kind of mythic prefigurement). But obviously if you don’t find the Christian narrative convincing or appealing as a whole, you won’t be too impressed by this. There are all sorts of ways in which the story could be false or distorted. It’s not knock-down proof by any means. But for those of us who find the general narrative convincing, for whom Christianity makes sense of the world, the historical evidence for the resurrection looks really good (good enough to accept that the community that came out of this event may be worth trusting even on matters for which the evidence isn’t nearly as good, like the virginal conception or for that matter the perpetual virginity).

Edwin

Edwin,

I’m afraid I don’t understand that statement. Where is the evidence except in the writings of a few of Jesus’ followers? I know they say that others saw him and etc, but they do not mention who, or get their accounts. No one in authority tried to make contact for 40 days, etc., etc…
If this was a modern story and a dead man was walking around there would be a lot more questions asked.

John

 

[Linusthe2nd]

Linusthe2nd;11558828:

What I said was “Knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis doesn’t require faith. But it does require evidence!”

I am without knowledge of stellar nucleosynthesis (I had to look it up.) I’m also without belief of anything to do with stellar nucleosynthesis. What I believe about stellar nucleosynthesis has no bearing on the objective truth of any of the claims it makes. When it comes to objective claims, I’m far less interested in what someone believes and why they believe it. I want to hear what they know and how they know it.

You just proved my contention. You have blind faith in what some " scientist " has said. Your position is no better than that of those you assert live by faith in a Divine Revelation.

Linus2nd

 

[kantus12]

Two cents incoming.

I think that one of the things people often forget when they discuss things like this is the difficulty of transporting and protecting information in pre-modern ages. Europe and the Middle East were very turbulent for many centuries, many powers rising up and falling down over fairly short time periods.

Take Alexander the Great, for instance. It has been mentioned that most of what we know about him was written by Romans, years later. Perhaps there were more contemporary sources, but here’s the thing - they were destroyed by the passage of time, or possibly by violence, and as a result their absence is not unusual. It wouldn’t be right to call Alexander’s historicity into account because “surely someone would have written something down in his own time?”.

I realise, before anyone jumps on me, that Alexander and Jesus are not exactly the same person, and didn’t make exactly the same claims, but the point of my post is that historical evidence can simply be destroyed or lost over time, particularly in a culture that doesn’t have an explicit museum system for the preservation of the arts, as we do in many countries now.

 

[Portofino]

Two cents incoming.

I think that one of the things people often forget when they discuss things like this is the difficulty of transporting and protecting information in pre-modern ages. Europe and the Middle East were very turbulent for many centuries, many powers rising up and falling down over fairly short time periods.

Take Alexander the Great, for instance. It has been mentioned that most of what we know about him was written by Romans, years later. Perhaps there were more contemporary sources, but here’s the thing - they were destroyed by the passage of time, or possibly by violence, and as a result their absence is not unusual. It wouldn’t be right to call Alexander’s historicity into account because “surely someone would have written something down in his own time?”.

I realise, before anyone jumps on me, that Alexander and Jesus are not exactly the same person, and didn’t make exactly the same claims, but the point of my post is that historical evidence can simply be destroyed or lost over time, particularly in a culture that doesn’t have an explicit museum system for the preservation of the arts, as we do in many countries now.

If one wasn’t, oneself, an eyewitness, then this is where it is indeed necessary to weigh evidence and to come to a consensus as to the probability of something being reliable, even though one cannot know with 100% certainty (and even eyewitnesses can be mistaken).

Your point about the content of the claims is a very relevant one, as well. If Alexander was claimed to have been bi-local – in India and Macedonia simultaneously, waging a battle on two fronts – or if he was claimed to have levitated, or – for that matter – to have “ascended” into heaven, you can be sure that history books would not be relating these exploits as matters of historical fact. They likely would chalk them up to legends that were meant to honor Alexander’s greatness, or to convince others that he was great. It is also a tendency that, after a great person has died, claims made him become even more hyperbolic – which may, psychologically, be related to the tendency to “only speak good of the dead”, to eu-logize them.

Both the interesting thing and the fascinating thing about questions of historical reliability is that – just as in the case of a criminal trial – there is an irreducible element of psychology. For example, what motive might someone have had to take liberties with the truth? Or, on a non-psychological level, what grounds might have existed for their being mistaken? So was the demon really a demon – or was that a way of understanding mental illness, or even certain physiological conditions such as epilepsy? Was the resurrection really a resurrection – the resurrection of Lazarus, for example – or was it rather a case of having awoken from a coma, at a time when the concept of being “comatose” was not understood? It’s an all-too common occurrence that those who are in a deep state of unconsciousness are mistaken for being dead; and we know that this is true to the point of individuals, throughout history, mistakenly having been buried alive.

These are all relevant questions and valid possibilities. It’s also a case of the overall testimony. If one is not convinced, for example, by the genealogies ascribed to Jesus, or not convinced by accounts of demonic possession (perhaps these were epileptics, or schizophrenics), then one is less likely to be convinced that Lazarus was resurrected from the dead, or that Jesus resurrected from the dead, or that the apostles themselves raised people from the dead. And in texts like the Gospels, where you also have the literary element of poetry and metaphor, the possibility for differences of opinion is even more pronounced – for example, perhaps “raised from the dead” was a metaphorical way of saying, “healed those who were sick and believed to be beyond hope of a cure; healed those who were believed destined for certain and imminent death.”

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254595/Grandmother-dead-spending-days-morgue.html

*Earlier this year, mourners in Egypt cheered when the ‘dead’ body they were burying woke up. Hamdi Hafez al-Nubi, a 28-year-old waiter, had been declared dead after suffering a heart attack at work.

His body was being prepared for burial when another doctor, sent to sign his death certificate, discovered he was still warm and managed to revive him.*

 

[Portofino]

We have multiple independent accounts written within a few decades of the event.).

Thanks for your response. Are they independent, though, those sources? From what I understand, Mark is believed to have been a common source for the authors of Matthew and Luke. If the gospel of Mark was itself a source that Matthew and Luke had drawn upon, then Matthew and Luke would not qualify as being independent accounts (kind of like the way suspects for the same crime are kept separate from each other, so that they cannot talk amongst themselves; but if Matthew and Luke had read Mark’s account, it would be the equivalent of suspect A being given a written transcript of suspect B’s testimony, to read at his leisure, before being called upon to provide his own testimony!)

 

[Contarini]

If one wasn’t, oneself, an eyewitness, then this is where it is indeed necessary to weigh evidence and to come to a consensus as to the probability of something being reliable, even though one cannot know with 100% certainty (and even eyewitnesses can be mistaken).

Your point about the content of the claims is a very relevant one, as well. If Alexander was claimed to have been bi-local – in India and Macedonia simultaneously, waging a battle on two fronts – or if he was claimed to have levitated, or – for that matter – to have “ascended” into heaven, you can be sure that history books would not be relating these exploits as matters of historical fact. They likely would chalk them up to legends that were meant to honor Alexander’s greatness, or to convince others that he was great. It is also a tendency that, after a great person has died, claims made him become even more hyperbolic – which may, psychologically, be related to the tendency to “only speak good of the dead”, to eu-logize them.

Right. And arguably historians have been insufficiently critical of the sources where they don’t have such supernatural claims (which they do, in fact, claiming that he was the son of Zeus). We tend to accept uncritically claims that fit our existing picture of the world. And as your example about Cleveland shows, this often leads us to be deceived. It’s still a good approach most of the time–otherwise we would doubt everything and wouldn’t be able to function in the world–but it’s far from foolproof. And I would argue that this goes both ways. Just as we may accept claims that seem plausible but are in fact false, so we may reject claims that violate our sense of what “normally” happens but are in fact true.

The Christian claim is that something radical happened 2000 years ago that should change our sense of what is and is not possible. If God really entered the world as Christians claim, then highly improbable things would be likely to happen surrounding that event–or rather, the event itself changes the game so radically that rules about what is probable aren’t very useful. So I think you can’t really evaluate a claim like this based on normal definitions of probability. And that’s the problem with the “extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence” maxim. Many of our rules for evidence are calculated to tell us what is probable, what the general patterns of the world as we observe them lead us to think is likely to happen. So these rules actually aren’t very good at assessing allegedly extraordinary events.

These are all relevant questions and valid possibilities. It’s also a case of the overall testimony. If one is not convinced, for example, by the genealogies ascribed to Jesus, or not convinced by accounts of demonic possession (perhaps these were epileptics, or schizophrenics), then one is less likely to be convinced that Lazarus was resurrected from the dead, or that Jesus resurrected from the dead, or that the apostles themselves raised people from the dead. And in texts like the Gospels, where you also have the literary element of poetry and metaphor, the possibility for differences of opinion is even more pronounced – for example, perhaps “raised from the dead” was a metaphorical way of saying, “healed those who were sick and believed to be beyond hope of a cure; healed those who were believed destined for certain and imminent death.”

I don’t think that’s a reasonable interpretation given the cultural context. N. T. Wright is good on this.

I also think that even if some of the miracle claims are legendary, this does not (contra both conservative Christians and skeptics) necessarily mean that the resurrection is. On the contrary, if something extraordinary really did happen, the normal human legend-creating impulse would surely go into overdrive. So one would expect a genuine miracle to be surrounded by lots of legendary ones. I think all Christians would agree that this is true–the question is simply how far the penumbra goes out, as it were. (For instance, pretty much everyone–well, except Muslims, and for all I know maybe some Eastern Orthodox–accepts that the apocryphal Infancy Gospel accounts of Jesus making birds out of clay and bringing them to life are legendary. Protestants think that the stories about Jesus’ birth in the Protoevangelium of James are legendary, and many Catholics would agree with the exception of the basic claim about the perpetual virginity of Mary. Catholic historical critics like Raymond Brown and John Meier tend to treat the birth narratives as mostly legendary, while leaving room for the virginal conception itself. More liberal Christians think that the virginal conception is legendary. And so on.)

As for Lazarus–were any of these cases dead for three days? I think the more reasonable alternative (to the story being true) in the case of Lazarus is that the story is a literary invention. The other stories of people being raised from the dead do seem very ambiguous as to whether the person was, by our terms, in a coma.

Edwin