Reasonable Doubt

[Nullasalus]

The other hand, we only have to look at the defendant’s story story as being reasonably possible (all we need is doubt). If it is reasonable to believe a bunch of wild story about a carpenter from two thousand of years ago that contain magic and other crazy elements, why not believe that anything is reasonably possible in the defendant’s case?

Or to take a Catholic example. Catholics believe a wafer can literally turn into the body of this carpenter. This is despite the fact that if the wafer is tested it can be shown to be just a wafer. If you believe the waifer is really the body of a carpenter from two thousand years ago, why not believe defendant if he says the physical is not what it appears?

The fact that we’re getting into the ‘We can put the wafer under a microscope and prove there’s no chemical change’ argument just shows how little has been studied re: catholicism here.

The wafer doesn’t need “to be tested”. It was apparent since the beginning that the bread and wine doesn’t, in its accidents, take on the form of body and blood. The priests of that age were not saying ‘No, really, the bread and wine is now flesh and blood in that sense. If only we had some manner of device capable of letting us see it very closely!’

As for ‘Why not believe the defendant’ claim, it’s been answered - in the case of christianity, it’s not the claim of a single person. Multiple witnesses who were steadfast in their belief of what they had seen. And, magic? Crazy elements? Yes, the story contains acts of apparent divine will, so much so that even now people are having trouble figuring out how it could have been pulled off of it were an intentional trick (Which is why the favored argument is ‘it never happened and there was never a Jesus’, despite how weak such is.) We simply do not understand how it occurred. It wouldn’t be the first time humanity witnessed a truth but could not explain how it came to be.

There’s even, over at wikipedia, arguments that by legal standards, the claim of Christ’s resurrection would be found substantiated. There’s also claims to the opposite, of course, but it’s worth checking out if you want to understand why many reasonable people don’t automatically agree with you.

 

[Penitant]

Not sure if this is the right forum. Please move if it is not.

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that God became a man, was crucified, died, and rose from the dead after three days, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant?

Is this criminal defendant willing to die for the sake of testifying to the truth of his story?

Are there others willing to die for the sake of testifying to the truth of his story?

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

The fact that we’re getting into the ‘We can put the wafer under a microscope and prove there’s no chemical change’ argument just shows how little has been studied re: catholicism here.

The wafer doesn’t need “to be tested”. It was apparent since the beginning that the bread and wine doesn’t, in its accidents, take on the form of body and blood. T

This is just an unfalsifiable cop-out.

As for ‘Why not believe the defendant’ claim, it’s been answered - in the case of christianity, it’s not the claim of a single person. Multiple witnesses who were steadfast in their belief of what they had seen.

Many other religions can claim the same thing including Mormons and Muslims.

 

[Ammonius_Saccus]

Is this criminal defendant willing to die for the sake of testifying to the truth of his story?

Are there others willing to die for the sake of testifying to the truth of his story?

Many people from different religions are willing to die for their beliefs. Were the Branch Davidians’ beliefs true because they were willing to die? How about the beliefs of Kool-Aid (really Flavor-Aid) drinkers that followed Jim Jones? Or the Heaven’s Gate cult? They were all willing to die for their beliefs. How does that affect the truth of their beliefs?

 

[Nullasalus]

This is just an unfalsifiable cop-out.

Honestly, do you think it was a fairly recent event - counting several centuries as recent, mind you - that people noticed transubstantiation did not apparently entail bread and wine taking on the direct appearance of flesh and blood?

I’ll repeat: If you’re wheeling in ‘evidence under the microscope’ against transubstantiation, it’s clear you’re either going with a straw-man argument, or you’re entirely unfamiliar with what’s being asserted. Which is fine - like most things that get into philosophy, it’s not exactly the easiest topic to follow. Just step back and read up on it before you address it.

Many other religions can claim the same thing including Mormons and Muslims.

You mean two faiths that are heavily linked to Christianity/Judaism? I wouldn’t doubt it.

Still, the comparison is wanting, especially to your own topic. We’re discussing miracles and the legitimacy of believing in apparently amazing things. Unless I’m mistaken, JS worked no miracles; he claimed to be the witness of one himself, essentially. Mohammed, essentially the same - in communication with the divine, not a miracle worker.

Don’t conflate ‘willingness to die for a higher cause’ with ‘willingness to die over a specific claim’. With Christ, the experiences and claims of miracles are central to the belief. Risking death for a Christ who was not risen would be the equivalent of a communist sacrificing his life for communism while believing the entire enterprise was fatally flawed.

You asked if it’s reasonable to believe in incredible things. The response has been, yes - with witnesses and evidence provided, for instance. Don’t worry, you can still continue to not believe in God - it’s just been illustrated why your analogy is very flawed, nothing more.

 

[Nita]

Actually, the Gospels are hearsay not direct testimony.

Prove it.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I repeat, what is this focus on “reasonable”? The truth of something does not rest on ‘reasonable.’ In the dawn of recorded history–i.e. 8000 ago-- it was ‘reasonable’ to believe the earth was flat–did that make it true? The ‘theories’ of the four humors were reasonable for the physicians of Galen’s time–did that make it true?

You are attempting strawman arguments. First, there is nothing ‘unreasonable’ about believing in Christ and his teaching. We have 2000 years of tradition, we have eyewitness testimony. Do you believe in the existence of Genghis Khan? Why? Did you ever meet him? All you have as knowledge are the reports of men who met him. You really cannot argue against the existence of Christ. . .so what you are arguing for is that, despite the Bible and sacred Tradition, you don’t ‘believe’ the miracles because they aren’t ‘reasonable’. A miracle by definition is outside the ordinary, but that does not make it ‘unreasonable’. Reason is not held down to ‘what can only be experienced by the senses or validated by trial and error’. Reason is not the sole parvenu of science, and science is not the ‘only answer’ to any question.

Can science explain why I am attracted to one person more than another, even if the other person scientifically speaking has ‘more’ to offer? It can’t. But is my attraction ‘unreasonable’? Of course not. Love in itself is not reasonable or unreasonable. Love isn’t ‘scientific’.

This whole premise is slightly ridiculous and is definitely becoming uncharitable IMO in the posts of the OP and some others. I think the OP has been very adequately answered, and hope the thread will soon be closed since it has indeed been answered.

 

[Nita]

Many people from different religions are willing to die for their beliefs. Were the Branch Davidians’ beliefs true because they were willing to die? How about the beliefs of Kool-Aid (really Flavor-Aid) drinkers that followed Jim Jones? Or the Heaven’s Gate cult? They were all willing to die for their beliefs. How does that affect the truth of their beliefs?

Yes, they were willing to die - BECAUSE they believed it was true.

The apostles and other early martyrs were willing to die because the KNEW it was true, believed it was true. If they had lied in their testimony, they would have known it wasn’t true - and then they would not have been willing to die for it.

You ask - “How does that affect the truth of their beliefs?” It doesn’t. Truth is objective. (I’m not denying the reality of subjective truth, but we’re talking about objective truth here.)
You don’t believe Jesus Christ is God - but that doesn’t effect the objective truth of whether or not He is. It’s just what you believe, and you’re entitled to your own belief, and responsible for it. Hopefully someday you’ll grasp the absolute wonder of God’s love for you, as He made and makes it present in Jesus.

God bless,
Nita

 

[Benedictus]

Yes, they were willing to die - BECAUSE they believed it was true.

The apostles and other early martyrs were willing to die because the KNEW it was true, believed it was true. If they had lied in their testimony, they would have known it wasn’t true - and then they would not have been willing to die for it.

They may have believed it was true, but that didn’t mean it was true. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in. That doesn’t make their beliefs true or even good. How many of the Nazi war criminals were saying “Heil Hitler” as they were being hanged? The people who flew planes into buildings believed they were going God’s work, but I’m pretty sure you’d disagree with them.

The apostles and martyrs weren’t necessarily lying, they could have simple been mistaken. Other religions have their own martyrs. Why don’t you follow those religions?

 

[CarlosG]

This is slightly off-topic, but since it has to do with legal claims to a certian extent, i thought it might be of interest.

You may or may not of heard the name Simon Greenleaf before, but to make a long story short, he wrote a book called a Treatise on the Law of Evidence (which is still the standard book on how to treat evidence in a court of law), he was a very important professor at Harvard Law School, and even helped get the law library expanded there.

At one point in his life he set out to prove the resurrection false and ended up becoming a Christian.

 

[Nita]

They may have believed it was true, but that didn’t mean it was true. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in. That doesn’t make their beliefs true or even good. How many of the Nazi war criminals were saying “Heil Hitler” as they were being hanged? The people who flew planes into buildings believed they were going God’s work, but I’m pretty sure you’d disagree with them.

The apostles and martyrs weren’t necessarily lying, they could have simple been mistaken. Other religions have their own martyrs. Why don’t you follow those religions?

I guess you didn’t read the last paragraph of my post. I said what one believes does not affect the truth of the belief; truth is objective. It just “IS”, whether we believe it or not. Someone once wrote in a column that truth is the most powerful force there is - because whether we believe it or not, whether we like it or not, - there is nothing we can do about it.

I follow Christianity because I believe it is the truth, but my belief doesn’t make it true. I don’t follow those other religions because I don’t believe they are true.

Nita

 

[Reepicheep]

They may have believed it was true, but that didn’t mean it was true. Many people are willing to die for what they believe in. That doesn’t make their beliefs true or even good. How many of the Nazi war criminals were saying “Heil Hitler” as they were being hanged? The people who flew planes into buildings believed they were going God’s work, but I’m pretty sure you’d disagree with them.

The apostles and martyrs weren’t necessarily lying, they could have simple been mistaken. Other religions have their own martyrs. Why don’t you follow those religions?

In the case of the Apostles, they were the first ones to make these claims. Peter, James, John, Thomas, Matthew - these were the originators of the claims for which they died.
If the claims were lies, would not those who first made them know they were lies? In that case, why did they willingly die rather than abandon their story?

 

[Ani_Ibi]

We don’t know Jesus could do these things.

Define ‘know.’

Catholicism is based on historical analysis. Based on historical analysis we can agree that we ‘know’ Jesus could do these things.

If you disagree, then you are either going to have dismantle historical analysis or dismantle the specific way that historical analysis has been used to support the claim that Jesus could do these things.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Nullasalus:

You started out with a claim about believing stories about Jesus. Said stories were backed up by witnesses who had little to gain by lying, and much to lose (and lose many of them did.) We should be entirely willing to entertain a so-called crazy person’s story, provided they can offer compelling evidence - just as the earliest Christians did.

Um… no. The point is that the witnesses were credible.

See Habermas,* The Theory of Communicative Action*

Habermas claimed that four validity claims exist for a communicative action to take place between two or more people:

Nullasalus:

1. 
   *]That they have uttered something understandably — or their statements are intelligible;
   *]That they have given other people something to understand — or are speaking something true;
   *]That the speaker is therefore understandable — or their intentions are recognized and appreciated for what they are; and,
   *]That they have come to an understanding with another person — or, they have used words that both actors can agree upon. (1979:4)

1. 
   The witnesses for Jesus in history met these criteria for the validity of their claims.
   
   If ‘crazy people’ can meet these criteria, then their claims too have validity. But can they meet these criteria?
   
   
   Nullasalus:
   

   Entirely reasonable explanations (When you start excluding the extraordinary as unreasonable) for the big questions of our existence are not available.

   There is no reason to exclude the extraordinary as unreasonable. Extraordinary claims merely require extraordinary proofs.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that the universe simply came into being on its own, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant?

Yes, I believe we do.

Faulty analogy.

You are claiming that the universe coming into being on its own is a crazy story. That is, that both explanations are essentially the same.

But you offer no support for this claim.

Therefore ‘the universe coming into being on its own’ and ‘any crazy story from a criminal defendant’ are not essentially the same.

Accepting any history as reasonable – whether the no-God theory of the universe or whether the alibi of an accused – must meet Habermas’ four validity claims for communicative acts as posted in my previous post.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Tantum ergo:

Since when does the truth or falsity of anything depend on whether it is reasonable? If it’s true, it’s true whether it is ‘reasonable’ or not. If it’s false, it’s false no matter how ‘reasonable’ it seems.

:nope:
Tantum ergo:

That’s where your argument fails, right from the start. The truth of the Resurrection doesn’t depend on whether you, John Doe, or the Marquis of Carabas think it’s ‘reasonable’. It depends on whether it is really true.

Truth is apprehendable by means of reason. If it were not, then we would all be dead because survival would hinge merely on luck and not on the gifts of observation and reason.

JP2, Faith can never conflict with reason

… St Augustine… wrote: "If it happens that the authority of Sacred Scripture is set in opposition to clear and certain reasoning, this must mean that the person who interprets Scripture does not understand it correctly.

It is not the meaning of Scripture which is opposed to the truth but the meaning which he has wanted to give to it.

That which is opposed to Scripture is not what is in Scripture but what he has placed there himself, believing that this is what Scripture meant".

A century ago, Pope Leo XIII echoed this advice in his Encyclical Providentissimus Deus: “Truth cannot contradict truth and we may be sure that some mistake has been made either in the interpretation of the sacred words, or in the polemical discussion itself”.(

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Ani, I agree and I think we are actually stating the same thing.

Reason does not ‘equal’ truth–and this is where I was going, because I think the OP was stating that since he did not feel the resurrection ‘reasonable’ it was therefore ‘untruthful’ or crazy.

But of course it is not.

Reason is a part of truth, as you say. But as a proverb once put it, ‘to those who look with crooked eyes, truth has a wry face.’ IOW, a person might believe, even by ‘scientific’ criteria that something is not ‘reasonable’ --and thus to them ‘truthful’–but the fact is, that truth does not have to look reasonable or even be ‘reasonable’ in so far as our limited capacity can judge reason, yet it will still be true.

It does not seem ‘reasonable’ that the death of one man, Jesus, should free all mankind. . .but it is true. And when considers it from the fullest perspective–that of God–it becomes reasonable as well. That we don’t ‘think it reasonable’ does not make it less than true, or even make it unreasonable.

So again, I think we’re on the same page.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Tantum ergo:

Reason does not ‘equal’ truth…

Reason is the means. Truth is the ends.
Tantum ergo:

Reason is a part of truth, as you say. But as a proverb once put it, ‘to those who look with crooked eyes, truth has a wry face.’

No ‘buts’ about it. Those with crooked eyes are referring to relativism not truth.
Tantum ergo:

IOW, a person might believe, even by ‘scientific’ criteria that something is not ‘reasonable’ --and thus to them ‘truthful’–but the fact is, that truth does not have to look reasonable or even be ‘reasonable’ in so far as our limited capacity can judge reason, yet it will still be true.

Ah, but you are sliding around with how we hear ‘reasonable.’ The history of science is filled with observations that no longer made sense. That is they no longer supported theories about how the world worked.

What happened? The first-hand experience of folks changed. That allowed them to see what they could not see before. Folks will literally not see what they have no experience of. Once they saw with new eyes, new theories were necessary to explain what they saw.
Tantum ergo:

It does not seem ‘reasonable’ that the death of one man, Jesus, should free all mankind.

Sure it does. To those whose experience has prepared them to open their eyes.

 

[Nullasalus]

Um… no. The point is that the witnesses were credible.

See Habermas,* The Theory of Communicative Action*

Habermas claimed that four validity claims exist for a communicative action to take place between two or more people:

The witnesses for Jesus in history met these criteria for the validity of their claims.

If ‘crazy people’ can meet these criteria, then their claims too have validity. But can they meet these criteria?

“Crazy people” wasn’t a term introduced by me, hence ‘so-called’ - obviously I don’t believe that we’re talking about crazy people in this case. I don’t see where you actually disagree with what I said; you got into the specifics of what qualifies as credible witnesses, which is very helpful and I’m grateful for it. But I stand by what I said - Christianity is not, as the OP implies, based on a single person making up a crazy story and everyone else accepting it with no compelling reason to.

There is no reason to exclude the extraordinary as unreasonable. Extraordinary claims merely require extraordinary proofs.

The particular problem I have with this, regarding what I was talking about (origin of the universe), is that I’d consider any claim about said origins to be extraordinary by nature - extraordinary in the sense that it’s likely going to be mind-boggling and counterintuitive to consider. Did the universe have a beginning? That’s an extraordinary claim. Did the universe have no beginning? Also extraordinary. And providing proof/evidence of the extraordinary does not, in my opinion, mean it is no longer extraordinary - something can be both true and extraordinary.

As for ‘reason’: I agree that faith can never conflict with reason. But I do believe that ‘reason’ as a concept is often co-opted, particularly in discussion with some atheists. Truth is acquired by reason, yes - but if the definition or declared bounds of reason shift before the investigation starts, there’s a problem.

 

[tdgesq]

If we are as a society going to say that it is reasonable to believe that God became a man, was crucified, died, and rose from the dead after three days, don’t we have to accept almost any crazy story from a criminal defendant?

Let’s get the analogy set up correctly so there are no mistakes in how we are to proceed. The criminal defendant is the Christian who is making the argument for the Incarnation and the Resurrection. Society is the jury that is being asked to believe the Christian’s story. The standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. That is - the prosecutor must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the Christian’s story is not to be believed.

You’ve just unwittingly placed the burden of proof upon yourself to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the Incarnation and the Resurrection (the story of the Christian) are false. Care to try again?