On scientism

[Touchstone]

we cannot explain the plain fact of existence of the universe apart from G-d. it is a necessary part of any explanatory chain. i dont think that occam, a Catholic himself, would find the parsimony of ontological beings to exclude G-d. when russel did it, he simply ignored the ontological necessity of a Creator.

Right. I don’t see any basis for such an ontological necessity either. But it’s enough to point out that this is how the argument must justify itself – not on historical-evidential terms, but as the preferred choice in an “anything goes” universe, “anything goes” because it is controlled and instantiated by the impassible will of deity.

Which is to say, parsimony goes out the window. If Gd, then anything, and there’s no basis for prefering economy in explanations when we don’t feel like it, especially when we find “God did it” appealing.

so when we posit G-d as a cause of the Messianic Prophecies, we posit a necessary being.

That’s a non-sequitur on multiple levels. Even if an ontological argument of some kind obtains (which is quite a concession from me, there), it does not follow that YHWH is real, or in anyway connected with that necessary being. It certainly does not follow that YHWH is that because of prophecies, which, as I said, are much more efficiently explained by mundane, natural causes.

What you have, as I understand it is something like this:

1. Something exists, therefore Necessary Being. (insert ontological argument details here)
2. Necessary Being, therefore Yahweh.
3. Yahweh, therefore prophecy is fulfilled as an explanation of claims.

Do I have that logic right?

-TS

 

[Touchstone]

but Jesus appeared more than once, to more than a few people, and performed miracles in plain view of the disciples, among others for 3 years prior to His resurrection. thats a whole lot of incidents to explain away as mass delusion.

Well, what do you make of this Sai Baba character:

In some books, magazines, filmed interviews and articles, Sathya Sai Baba’s followers report miracles of various kinds that they attribute to him.[99] Claims have been made by devotees that objects have appeared spontaneously in connection with pictures and altars of Sathya Sai Baba.[163][164] Sathya Sai Baba’s devotees believe that he relieves his devotees by transferring their pain to himself.[165] Daily, he is observed to allegedly manifest vibuthi (holy ash), and sometimes food and small objects such as rings, necklaces and watches.[166]

That’s a whole lot MORE people having mass delusions than the early Christians, daily, huh? Apparently, there’s a little more to it than just hallucination!

And all this gets going and persists in the 21st century, surrounded by all the great science and skepticism and recourse to facts we have now. How much easier must this kind of thing been to get going and keep going in apocalyptic-minded 1C Palestine?

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Right. I don’t see any basis for such an ontological necessity either. But it’s enough to point out that this is how the argument must justify itself – not on historical-evidential terms, but as the preferred choice in an “anything goes” universe, “anything goes” because it is controlled and instantiated by the impassible will of deity.

Which is to say, parsimony goes out the window. If Gd, then anything, and there’s no basis for prefering economy in explanations when we don’t feel like it, especially when we find “God did it” appealing.

the basis for ontological necessity is the existence of all these contingent beings.

that aside. the argument does justify itself as far as is reasonably possible for a 2000 year old series of events, which occured not only in the most politicaly, militarily and religiously active area of the world, but which was also an underground movement, subject to the maxim we all know, “the victors write the history” we should be so lucky, in that anything survived at all.

if G-ddidit is the most economical answer then it would be fine, one just has to guard against that as a reason when unwarranted. i.e., i spilled my orangge juice, ergo, G-ddidit.

That’s a non-sequitur on multiple levels. Even if an ontological argument of some kind obtains (which is quite a concession from me, there), it does not follow that YHWH is real, or in anyway connected with that necessary being. It certainly does not follow that YHWH is that because of prophecies, which, as I said, are much more efficiently explained by mundane, natural causes.

What you have, as I understand it is something like this:

1. Something exists, therefore Necessary Being. (insert ontological argument details here)
2. Necessary Being, therefore Yahweh.
3. Yahweh, therefore prophecy is fulfilled as an explanation of claims.

Do I have that logic right?

-TS

i dont see how mundane, natural causes can explain a great many witnesses to a great many events, spread over several years. if it were but one or two incidents, then one may well explain it away, but many over the course of years? with many different witnesses, who died for their beliefs? i find it difficult to reasonably imagine any natural causes for such a series of events.

i would change #2 as follows, and delete #3 as i cant begin to imagine anything less than a vast conspiracy as a natural explanation.

1. Necessary Being, (all evidence for Christianity) therefore Yahweh.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, what do you make of this Sai Baba character:

That’s a whole lot MORE people having mass delusions than the early Christians, daily, huh? Apparently, there’s a little more to it than just hallucination!

And all this gets going and persists in the 21st century, surrounded by all the great science and skepticism and recourse to facts we have now. How much easier must this kind of thing been to get going and keep going in apocalyptic-minded 1C Palestine?

-TS

i make of it what it is, an obvious rip off of some other faiths essentials, slight of hand, etc. this is not the sort of thing that Christ did, 5000 loaves and fishes takes a little more than slight of hand, walking on water, ressurection as well, much less fulfilling prophecies beyond His control, such as lineage, place of birth, name, etc. this mans claims could be easily tested. simply torture and scourge him near to death, then nail him to a cross and see if he recants. i assure you, he wont make it past the scourging.

this man benefits from his trickery, Christ did not benefit from His ministry, He only got Himself scourged, spat upon, chased, imprisoned, humiliated and finally murdered. and for what? if His claims were not true He could have spared himself any of that. yet He didnt. at any point He could have simply walked away. any of the Apostles could have walked away. they didnt. the second and third generation could have walked away, but they didnt. they had all seen miracles that can not be faked, walking on water, healing blindness, mulitplying massive amounts of food, etc.

this is an entirely different situation than that of Christ.

 

[Touchstone]

the basis for ontological necessity is the existence of all these contingent beings.

that aside. the argument does justify itself as far as is reasonably possible for a 2000 year old series of events, which occured not only in the most politicaly, militarily and religiously active area of the world, but which was also an underground movement, subject to the maxim we all know, “the victors write the history” we should be so lucky, in that anything survived at all.

Why don’t you see this is a case of that maxim in action? What happen to the gnostic faction, and montanists? Where are the Essene Gospels? The sarcists were the victors, no? Isn’t that why the gospels are the way they are, conspicuous in their sarcism as opposed to our earliest sources, the Pauline epistles, where no empty tomb or bodily resurrection, or witness is recorded?

if G-ddidit is the most economical answer then it would be fine, one just has to guard against that as a reason when unwarranted. i.e., i spilled my orangge juice, ergo, G-ddidit.

Amen. That seems decisive in dismissing resurrection claims, then, though, by that very principle you’ve just articulated. An apolyptic cult that fashioned an anodyne “vision” of their executed leader “conquering death” as the spark for a zealous wildfire for evangelism is the “spilled orange juice due to bumps and gravity” here.

i dont see how mundane, natural causes can explain a great many witnesses to a great many events, spread over several years. if it were but one or two incidents, then one may well explain it away, but many over the course of years? with many different witnesses, who died for their beliefs? i find it difficult to reasonably imagine any natural causes for such a series of events.

Whatever difficulties those may represent, and there are difficulties there, to be sure, they are DWARFED by the difficulties introduced by the fabulous tales of resurrection, visitation and ascenscion.

i would change #2 as follows, and delete #3 as i cant begin to imagine anything less than a vast conspiracy as a natural explanation.

Can I suggest your imagine hasn’t worked very hard at all on that question, then?

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Why don’t you see this is a case of that maxim in action? What happen to the gnostic faction, and montanists? Where are the Essene Gospels? The sarcists were the victors, no? Isn’t that why the gospels are the way they are, conspicuous in their sarcism as opposed to our earliest sources, the Pauline epistles, where no empty tomb or bodily resurrection, or witness is recorded?

gnostics and montanists were heretics where applicable, the essenes were Jewish sects, and Paul wasnt a witness to the Ressurection. you have a proclivity for unusual adjectives, what is a sarcist?

Amen. That seems decisive in dismissing resurrection claims, then, though, by that very principle you’ve just articulated. An apolyptic cult that fashioned an anodyne “vision” of their executed leader “conquering death” as the spark for a zealous wildfire for evangelism is the “spilled orange juice due to bumps and gravity” here.

it would seem the only full explanation of such a thing would include G-d. calling the Apostles an apocalyptic cult, decades prior to Johns revelation is jumping the gun. further, considerinng the loss of comfortable lives, it hardly makes them feel better, its brings them yet further trials, no?

Whatever difficulties those may represent, and there are difficulties there, to be sure, they are DWARFED by the difficulties introduced by the fabulous tales of resurrection, visitation and ascenscion.

this just comes down to a basic worldview, at least in the sense that if you doubt the existence of G-d, such things seem cfanciful, if you dont doubt, then these things seem quite plausible in the context.

Can I suggest your imagine hasn’t worked very hard at all on that question, then?

-TS

if there is something that fits the facts, a reason that is well mapped to reality, then let me know, but people do not lead lives of deprivationa and die for things the even have a small doubt about. a vast conspiracy, for a reason that doesnt occur to me, seems to be the most reasonable of the alternatives if the facts are not true.

 

[Touchstone]

gnostics and montanists were heretics where applicable, the essenes were Jewish sects, and Paul wasnt a witness to the Ressurection. you have a proclivity for unusual adjectives, what is a sarcist?

From the Greek *sarx *or *sarkos, *meaning “flesh”. “Sarcist” being indicative of the post-Jesus faction that supported a “bodily resurrection” legend, as evinced in the gospels, as opposed to the Gnostic faction that viewed the resurrection as a spiritual, non-flesh event. I think the Essenes would be another oppositional faction to the sarcists as well, seeing Christ’s resurrection as an “exchange” of the old, mortal body (ostensibly then left in a non-empty tomb) for a new, “heavenly body”.

it would seem the only full explanation of such a thing would include G-d. calling the Apostles an apocalyptic cult, decades prior to Johns revelation is jumping the gun. further, considerinng the loss of comfortable lives, it hardly makes them feel better, its brings them yet further trials, no?

Have you read Matthew 24, the “Little Apocalypse”? All through the Gospels, Jesus is trying to convey the sense of urgency he has for the coming eschaton. At the start of Mark 9, Jesus informs the disciples that “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” This was not a cult preparing for a 2,000 year haul into the future on the wheels of “business as usual”.

this just comes down to a basic worldview, at least in the sense that if you doubt the existence of G-d, such things seem cfanciful, if you dont doubt, then these things seem quite plausible in the context.

Fair enough. But with an impassible, omniscient, omnipotent God in the equation, whose mind we cannot plumb, the utility of parsimony seems hard to identify, all of a sudden. Anything can happen, anytime, any way, if that’s what we want to attribute to God.

if there is something that fits the facts, a reason that is well mapped to reality, then let me know, but people do not lead lives of deprivationa and die for things the even have a small doubt about. a vast conspiracy, for a reason that doesnt occur to me, seems to be the most reasonable of the alternatives if the facts are not true.

As above, I think if far more plausible that those who died as martyrs did so convinced Jesus had been resurrected, visited (some) of them, and ascended into heaven. The most plausible explanation also holds that they were mistaken about that.

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

From the Greek *sarx *

or *sarkos, *meaning “flesh”. “Sarcist” being indicative of the post-Jesus faction that supported a “bodily resurrection” legend, as evinced in the gospels, as opposed to the Gnostic faction that viewed the resurrection as a spiritual, non-flesh event. I think the Essenes would be another oppositional faction to the sarcists as well, seeing Christ’s resurrection as an “exchange” of the old, mortal body (ostensibly then left in a non-empty tomb) for a new, “heavenly body”.

interesting, ill have to add that to my lexicon. gnosticism permeated more than one school of thought and theology, i can see how they would have been evicted quite early in the process, for us authority stems through Peter. and i have no idea what the essenes influence might have been.

Have you read Matthew 24, the “Little Apocalypse”? All through the Gospels, Jesus is trying to convey the sense of urgency he has for the coming eschaton. At the start of Mark 9, Jesus informs the disciples that “I tell you the truth, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the kingdom of God come with power.” This was not a cult preparing for a 2,000 year haul into the future on the wheels of “business as usual”.

 

[Fran65]

Sai Baba simply ‘materialises’ objects. A very cheap trick which any competent magician can do. This is very different in character and magnitude to the miracles performed by Jesus.

 

[AnAtheist]

Regarding the application of Occam’s razor to this case. There is either a major conspiracy as I outline above, or the Gospel writers were writing the truth as they understood it. The most parsiminious explanation is clear.

That is a false dichotomy. 6 people writing a bunch of stories do not make a major conspiracy. But dozens of people willing to believe what a single person says (for whatever reason) make the core for a successful religion.
Oh, and another thing: The early Christians in the Roman Empire were not püersecuted because of waht they believed. The Romans did not care at all, what religious beliefs one had, they cared only about the following of the rites, something the Christians did not want to do. And something the Christians gladly adopted when they gained power, then people were persecuted if they did not follow the Christian rites.

 

[Fran65]

You think that the Gospels was simply a matter of six individuals sitting down one day to write “a bunch of stories”? There is in that case a great deal for you to learn!

One place to start finding out how these chapters were written is to read E.P. Sanders’ book, The Historical Figure of Jesus. Sanders is an eminent New Testament scholar. You will learn a great deal from his work. His is not, by the way, a Catholic or a theologian. He is a historian. Another non Catholic book is by Karen Armstrong: The Bible, A Biography.

They are both enormously interesting, informative and objective.

 

[Touchstone]

Sai Baba simply ‘materialises’ objects. A very cheap trick which any competent magician can do. This is very different in character and magnitude to the miracles performed by Jesus.

Well, here’s an account of him bringing a dead man back to life. That’s in Jesus’ league, isn’t it?

The resurrection of Mr. V. Radhakrishna

She went downstairs again and waited, with her daughter and son in law by the body. The minutes dragged by - an hour passed - but Swami did not come. Then, they were beginning to despair entirely, the door opened and there stood Baba in red robe, copious fair, and shining smile. It was then half past two in the afternoon of the third day. Mrs. Radhakrishna went towards Baba and burst into tears. Vijaya too began crying. They were like Martha and Mary, the sisters of Lazarus, weeping before their Lord who, they thought, came too late.

      Gently, Baba asked the tearful women and sorrowful son in law to leave            the           room. As they left, He closed the door behind them. They did not know            - no           man Knew - what happened in the room where there were only Baba and            the dead           man.
      
      After a few minutes Baba opened the door and beckoned the waiting ones            in.           There on the bed Radhakrishna was looking at them and smiling.            Amazingly the           stiffness of death had vanished and his natural colour was returning.            Baba           went over, stroked the patient's head and said to him, "Talk to to them,            they           are worried."
      
      Why worried asked the perplexed Radhakrishna, I am alright you are            here.
      
      Swami turned to the wife " I have given your husband back to you " He            said           "Now get him a hot drink."

This guy performed a whole bunch of miracles, many of them “big league” miracles. If he’s not really doing these things, how can all the witnesses be having so many mass delusions???

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, here’s an account of him bringing a dead man back to life. That’s in Jesus’ league, isn’t it?

The resurrection of Mr. V. Radhakrishna

This guy performed a whole bunch of miracles, many of them “big league” miracles. If he’s not really doing these things, how can all the witnesses be having so many mass delusions???

-TS

did he die for what he believed? did he benefit from people thinking he had powers? the larget thing this guy made materialize is a big necklace or some such. im not sure your idea of big league miracles coincides with ours. but even if they did, this man benefits from his trickery, have you seen the minor sleight of hand he performs on youtube and calls a miracle? i wouldnt trust a man dishonest in small things, to be honest in “big league” things. much less a man who lives very well on the basis of said trickery. i think that its quite clear that this is in no way a manifestation anything like that witnesses claimed for Christ. you need only watch his silly tricks on youtube to dismiss him as the charlatan he obviously is.

youtube.com/results?search_query=Sathya+Sai+Baba+fraud&search_type=&aq=f

 

[Touchstone]

did he die for what he believed? did he benefit from people thinking he had powers? the larget thing this guy made materialize is a big necklace or some such. im not sure your idea of big league miracles coincides with ours. but even if they did, this man benefits from his trickery, have you seen the minor sleight of hand he performs on youtube and calls a miracle? i wouldnt trust a man dishonest in small things, to be honest in “big league” things. much less a man who lives very well on the basis of said trickery. i think that its quite clear that this is in no way a manifestation anything like that witnesses claimed for Christ. you need only watch his silly tricks on youtube to dismiss him as the charlatan he obviously is.

youtube.com/results?search_query=Sathya+Sai+Baba+fraud&search_type=&aq=f

Well, I take a dim view of miracles, as you might guess. But the point here was not the integrity of Sai Baba’s miracles – they are as fantastic as Christian claims, in my view, and hardly worth a Google search to chase down.

What should be instructive here, and what I was pointing at, was the witnesses, all these people who support these miraculous claims. It’s been said here that “mass delusions” are problematic. Well, they may be, but I don’t think “delusion” is the only resource we have to draw on for our explanations.

What do we make of the followers of Sai Baba? How can these witnesses be so deluded? If the Jesus cult could not have been caught up – not possibly, to hear apologists tell it – in grief, despair, fear, expectation and desperation, all brewing in a culture of mystical apocalypticism, then I think the witnesses and supporters of the miracles of Sai Baba are a serious point of cognitive dissonance. This should not happen, especially in today’s world, if people do not get caught up in such fantasies.

Do you suppose all the witnesses in support of his miracles are propounding claims they know not to be true?

-TS

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Well, I take a dim view of miracles, as you might guess. But the point here was not the integrity of Sai Baba’s miracles – they are as fantastic as Christian claims, in my view, and hardly worth a Google search to chase down.

What should be instructive here, and what I was pointing at, was the witnesses, all these people who support these miraculous claims. It’s been said here that “mass delusions” are problematic. Well, they may be, but I don’t think “delusion” is the only resource we have to draw on for our explanations.

What do we make of the followers of Sai Baba? How can these witnesses be so deluded? If the Jesus cult could not have been caught up – not possibly, to hear apologists tell it – in grief, despair, fear, expectation and desperation, all brewing in a culture of mystical apocalypticism, then I think the witnesses and supporters of the miracles of Sai Baba are a serious point of cognitive dissonance. This should not happen, especially in today’s world, if people do not get caught up in such fantasies.

Do you suppose all the witnesses in support of his miracles are propounding claims they know not to be true?

-TS

many of them may well be advancing claims they know are false. its simply the indian version of tent revival faith healers. drum up the apropriate atmosphere with song and rhetoric, smack a couple people in the forehead,(spit out gold rings, obviously concealed in a cup) and you have fooled a few poor, uneducated people in order to benefit yourself with their offerings.

this man performs sleight of hand, Christ was prophecised by hundreds of years before His birht, by different men, living at different times, in different places, Christ walked on water, multiplied food for thousands, cured the blind, lame and ill, resurrected and appeared more than once to dozens of people. Christ worked as a carpenter the baba works not at all.

these 2 men are nothing alike. not only are the miracles of much different quality, Christ did not benefit from his followers, it killed Him in a torturous manner, His followers didnt benefit from the faith, they to died after lives of oppression and persecution. at any time any of these people could have walked away from it and lived regular lives. but they didnt.

the baba sits on a throne, Christ sat on the ground. metapohorically, thats all the difference. how much cognitive dissonance does it take not to see the vast differences?

 

[Touchstone]

many of them may well be advancing claims they know are false. its simply the indian version of tent revival faith healers. drum up the apropriate atmosphere with song and rhetoric, smack a couple people in the forehead,(spit out gold rings, obviously concealed in a cup) and you have fooled a few poor, uneducated people in order to benefit yourself with their offerings.

this man performs sleight of hand, Christ was prophecised by hundreds of years before His birht, by different men, living at different times, in different places, Christ walked on water, multiplied food for thousands, cured the blind, lame and ill, resurrected and appeared more than once to dozens of people. Christ worked as a carpenter the baba works not at all.

these 2 men are nothing alike. not only are the miracles of much different quality, Christ did not benefit from his followers, it killed Him in a torturous manner, His followers didnt benefit from the faith, they to died after lives of oppression and persecution. at any time any of these people could have walked away from it and lived regular lives. but they didnt.

the baba sits on a throne, Christ sat on the ground. metapohorically, thats all the difference. how much cognitive dissonance does it take not to see the vast differences?

Again, I wasn’t interested in Sai Baba as an analog to Christ. I appreciate your defense in that area, but that’s not what I’m pointing at here.

Instead, I’m wondering about the witnesses (I think I said this above). If the early followers of Christ just could not have taken an idea like reports of a visitation from a resrurrected Jesus and run with them, the witness who support the miracles of Sai Baba (many of which are “significant” miracles – see the link to the “resurrection”) are a problem that’s hard to explain. To me, examples like the Sai Baba witnesses, or the martyrs who died in support of God’s revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr., to cite another problematic example, make the “witess/martyr” vector of the resurection claims quite plausibly accounted for by run-of-the-mill humanity.

This stuff happens. People run with stuff like that.

-TS

 

[Fran65]

This is a possibility, as Warp has acknowledged. It is also why, in the case of Jesus’ status and identity, multiple strands are considered. I would highly recommend Richard Swinburne’s book Was Jesus God?. Swinburne is a philosopher at Oxford University.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Again, I wasn’t interested in Sai Baba as an analog to Christ. I appreciate your defense in that area, but that’s not what I’m pointing at here.

Instead, I’m wondering about the witnesses (I think I said this above). If the early followers of Christ just could not have taken an idea like reports of a visitation from a resrurrected Jesus and run with them, the witness who support the miracles of Sai Baba (many of which are “significant” miracles – see the link to the “resurrection”) are a problem that’s hard to explain. To me, examples like the Sai Baba witnesses, or the martyrs who died in support of God’s revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr., to cite another problematic example, make the “witess/martyr” vector of the resurection claims quite plausibly accounted for by run-of-the-mill humanity.

This stuff happens. People run with stuff like that.

-TS

i looked at baba alot, he doesnt have any significant miracles. a claim of ressurection was it, and that was suspect in light of his sleight of hand. on the other hand, the massive unexplainable miracles of Christ over the 3 years of His ministry are a different story. the ressurection was witnessed by many, on several occasions. its not as though it was one incident. and then these people believed so strongly that they died, not as the mormons, mobbed together, having no choice, but trapped. these people chose dangerous lives of privation, for decades, and then martyrdom.

people were no less intelligent then, though they lacked the modern conveniences, thye like ups would not risk everything for decades of persecutions, on anything less than the complete belief that comes from the unerring witness of things that cant be reasonably faked.

people do get all excited at big tent events, i dont question that, but they dont give their lives, they dont risk real persecution, martyrdom and the loss of everything for a few tricks. i think it unreasonable to chalk Christianity up to that, in light of mormon massacres and indian fakirs.

 

[Mystic_Banana]

Again, I wasn’t interested in Sai Baba as an analog to Christ. I appreciate your defense in that area, but that’s not what I’m pointing at here.

Instead, I’m wondering about the witnesses (I think I said this above). If the early followers of Christ just could not have taken an idea like reports of a visitation from a resrurrected Jesus and run with them, the witness who support the miracles of Sai Baba (many of which are “significant” miracles – see the link to the “resurrection”) are a problem that’s hard to explain. To me, examples like the Sai Baba witnesses, or the martyrs who died in support of God’s revelation to Joseph Smith, Jr., to cite another problematic example, make the “witess/martyr” vector of the resurection claims quite plausibly accounted for by run-of-the-mill humanity.

This stuff happens. People run with stuff like that.

-TS

Miracles are fakeable, as is magic, as are ghosts etc. The difference is that scientismically you have faith that this is what happens, whereas those of us that are religious have faith otherwise.

The practice of imitatory illusionism, magic and/or science as an argument against the reality of divine action goes back as far as Exodus, at least… and is continued today with that collider being used to attempt to bring forth life