Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[PRmerger]

Okay, but how do we know that the Apostles did not make up the Resurrection out of cognitive dissonance from the idea that they expected their Messiah to rule, but ended up dying? The quotes from Jesus saying that He will die and resurrect could have been made up.

Who made this up and why?

Every other Jewish sect that had a messiah that died simply went home and found a new messiah.

Why did these guys make up such a story?

 

[PRmerger]

In a human? Yes it obviously would. Because it is physically, medically and biologically impossible. That is why it is used as an example of an incontrovertible miracle. You can’t fake it

And were this to occur, atheists would declare that human beings, being just another animal in nature, have simply evolved into salamanders.

Cards on the table, Tony. Do you believe in Fatima or Zeitun? We can work from there.

My answer: I am an agnostic on this. It really makes no difference to me whether they are true or not. My Catholic faith is complete without these alleged miracles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sometimes saying “We dont know” is scientifically honest. But just because we dont know now, doesbt mean we wont know in the future. Also, science’s job is always the “how” and not the “why.”

But, you’ll never hear a believer say they don’t know, they always have all the answers. That has been my experience, at least.

God of the Gaps, exactly my point. You always have all the answers.

Well, the RCC speaks with authority, they dont speak from a neutral point. When asked about the specifics, it basically amounts to “We dont know, but, we know we’re right.” So they cant tell you how they got there, but they can certainly tell you they are right and you are wrong. That isnt the same as admitting we dont have the answers today, but we may one day have the answers.

God of the Gaps or Science of the Gaps?

"First, the existence of “God of the gaps” explanations in the past no more undermines current arguments for God than discarded scientific theories and medical beliefs of the past undermine today’s science and medicine. The mistakes in each should only drive us to more careful theorizing in the future.

"Second, the criticism that god is simply a way to explain unknown phenomenon commits the informal logical error known as the genetic fallacy which occurs when it is assumed that discovering how a belief originated is sufficient to explain the belief. However, it is a fallacy because it attacks the origin of a view instead of the view itself—a view which may be correct. For example, that some ancient Romans may have thought that Jupiter was responsible for their victory over the Gauls does not nullify the historical factuality of the battle or Rome’s great victory.

"Third, what we already know from respected disciplines like medical science, history and psychology is precisely what renders the conclusion of Jesus’ resurrection so compelling. Conversely, these same disciplines disprove natural explanations of this event. Interestingly enough, without a workable opposing theory, the skeptic must be careful not to substitute a “naturalism of the gaps” view. This occurs when critics have little ground on which to oppose the resurrection, yet they conclude that it could not have happened (which is mere denial). Or they simply refuse to believe in spite of not having a viable counter response. We must not suspend judgment when adequate evidence is available upon which to make a decision. The resurrection challenges nature’s laws, and there does not seem to be a way to incorporate it with nature.

“Fourth, it is an unjustifiable leap to proclaim that at some future point in time we will find a scientific answer for the resurrection of Jesus. If the resurrection is questioned again at some future date, Christians will research and respond. In the meantime, we should not rule out the possibility of the resurrection without a viable reason.” (Gary R. Habermas & Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Christ, 137-138)

 

[PRmerger]

You are quite willing to bring up Fatima as a bone fide miracle

Nope.

I simply brought it up to PA as a similar example of his criteria for proof of God.

 

[PRmerger]

So somebody didn’t check a radio because it started working. Big deal.

Ummmm…yeah. Quite a big deal. Big enough that it shook Shermer’s skepticism to its core.

Big enough that you said that it does suggest the supernatural.

And for an atheist, one would think that any suggestion of the supernatural would be a big deal.

And as a scientist, Shermer’s lack of desire to pursue the “how and the why” is curious indeed.

#veryunscientific

 

[Aloysium]

. . . And as a scientist, Shermer’s lack of desire to pursue the “how and the why” is curious indeed. #veryunscientific

#veryhuman.
In trying to learn the how’s and why’s, one must utilize a world vision, an understanding of how things work, that in this case could have obliterated the experience.
It was too meaningful, possibly too sacred.
It is simple to translate the sensory experience into a preconceived scientific framework.
Something happened that made him consider that the template he used to determine reality was incomplete.
From his skepticism and as a scientist, he would also know how much noise is in the data, how much we do not know, and how ultimately, new scientific theories supplant the old and are ever evolving.
It is best to keep an open heart and mind.

 

[icamhif]

Every other Jewish sect that had a messiah that died simply went home and found a new messiah.

Except for the followers of Sabbatai Zevi

Who made this up and why?

Why did these guys make up such a story?

The atheist/agnostic argument is that the Apostles could have made it up, possibly to create an ad-hoc explanation to why their Messiah died to counsel their cognitive dissonance. Thus, Christian apologists need to disprove the cognitive dissonance theory, or at least show that the Resurrection is more plausible than that theory.

 

[PRmerger]

Except for this Jewish sect

Well, ok. Every other Jewish sect up to the time of the Incarnation…which changed everything.

 

[PRmerger]

The atheist/agnostic argument is that the Apostles could have made it up, possibly to create an ad-hoc explanation to why their Messiah died to counsel their cognitive dissonance.

Again, why not simply accept that he died, go home and find another messiah?

And why would they lie under torture and not recant?

 

[icamhif]

Again, why not simply accept that he died, go home and find another messiah?

And why would they lie under torture and not recant?

These rhetorical questions assume that the Apostles were given a chance to live on the condition that they will recant the Resurrection. But as pointed out in Post #180 and #182 (Part 5 and 6), that premise may not be well-established. For example, the Apostle Peter was martyred during the reign of Nero, who accused Christians of starting the fire that burned Rome. Thus, he may have been martyred for that accusation instead of his belief in the Resurrection, making the question of why he never recanted irrelevant.

 

[PRmerger]

Thus, he may have been martyred for that accusation instead of his belief in the Resurrection, making the question of why he never recanted irrelevant.

That’s an example which I cited earlier–some things which are gaga, lala nonsense that even uneducated peasants know to be absurd will be embraced by the most educated intellectuals.

 

[icamhif]

Here is the third of three posts about the die for a lie argument.

Part 6

The word Christ as listed in the text that says “who was called Christ” comes from the Greek word khristos meaning “the annointed” In Levitius 4:3 the high priest is referred to as mashiyach. In the Septuigant (the Greek translation) he is called khristos. That’s done 4 times in Leviticus and once in Numbers. It makes sense that the James being spoken of was the brother of Jesus, son of Damneus, since he was the high priest – the anointed one. Also if Josephus was talking about Jesus of Nazareth it doesn’t make sense that the people would protest since he was from the heretical sect of Christians that was also politically troubling. Ananus killing the brother of a rival seems much more likely. Also the stories of James’ martyrdom differs greatly from that of Josephus’ story.

Andrew - He was said to be crucified in Greece based on the 3rd century apocraphyl work called The Acts of Andrew. He wasn’t martyred for his message but because he converted the local procouncil’s fiancee and after she wanted to end the relationship with the procouncil (who had him arrested and executed).

Matthew - Clement of Alexandria said that Matthew died an old man about 90 C.E. Those who say he was martyred say he was killed in Ethiopia, or Macedonia, or Parthia, or on his way to India. They say he was killed by being stabbed, or beheaded, or stoned, or crucified then set on fire. There is no conclusive evidence.

Bartholomew/Nathanael - Depending on the story he was beaten then crucified, or beheaded, or flayed by a whip, or flayed by a knife.

Part 7

Peter - Tradition says he was crucified upside down in Rome, but there was no evidence he ever went to Rome. Also it reportedly took place during Nero’s persecution of Christians, which had nothing to do with theology but an attempt to scapegoat Christians for the Roman fire he caused. If he did die then, it had nothing to do with whether Jesus was raised from the dead.

In sum, the three points show that the argument fails and can not be used to prove that Jesus rose from the dead.

Oral traditions were more highly valued in the first few centuries than they are today, so it is no wonder that we have limited written accounts that survive to this day. The accounts may disagree on the details of a martyrdom, but their multiple attestations give me good reason to believe that they were at least martyred in some form. The veracity of the martyrdom itself does not hinge on the accuracy of the details. I grant that we have limited, late-arriving accounts of most of the Apostles’ martyrdoms, but we have first century accounts of the martyrdom of Peter and James. Just two martyrdoms is good enough for me; not so much that I think it’s clear-cut proof for the Resurrection, but so much that belief in the Resurrection is reasonable and rational.

 

[icamhif]

That’s an example which I cited earlier–some things which are gaga, lala nonsense that even uneducated peasants know to be absurd will be embraced by the most educated intellectuals.

Can you name me some reputable Bible scholars who disagree with that theory?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay, but how do we know that the Apostles did not make up the Resurrection out of cognitive dissonance from the idea that they expected their Messiah to rule, but ended up dying? The quotes from Jesus saying that He will die and resurrect could have been made up.

Because your theory does not account for three facts accepted almost universally by NT scholars (skeptics and believers alike):

1. Paul, the enemy of the Church who was NOT one of the disciples, was not suffering from cognitive dissonance and yet, he was dramatically converted by an appearance of the risen Jesus.
2. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus who was not one of the disciples, was not suffering from cognitive dissonance and yet, he was dramatically converted by an appearance of the risen Jesus.
3. The tomb was found empty. All the authorities in Jerusalem had to do to shut Christianity down before it got started was to parade Jesus’ body through the streets. Instead, their own explanation - that the disciples stole the body - confirms that the tom was empty.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Thus, he may have been martyred for that accusation instead of his belief in the Resurrection, making the question of why he never recanted irrelevant.

Your argument does not address the fact that he did not recant. It simply states that you presume that he would have been killed regardless of his professed belief. It is not irrelevant that he did not recant because he died believing Christ. Now, if you have some proof that says otherwise and is to you more valid than the confessions of miracles, present it.

 

[icamhif]

Your argument does not address the fact that he did not recant. It simply states that you presume that he would have been killed regardless of his professed belief. It is not irrelevant that he did not recant because he died believing Christ. Now, if you have some proof that says otherwise and is to you more valid than the confessions of miracles, present it.

Good point

 

[Randy_Carson]

These rhetorical questions assume that the Apostles were given a chance to live on the condition that they will recant the Resurrection. But as pointed out in Post #180 and #182 (Part 5 and 6), that premise may not be well-established. For example, the Apostle Peter was martyred during the reign of Nero, who accused Christians of starting the fire that burned Rome. Thus, he may have been martyred for that accusation instead of his belief in the Resurrection, making the question of why he never recanted irrelevant.

In Acts 4, Peter and John were called before the Sanhedrin and threatened.

In Acts 5, the apostes were thrown in jail and flogged.

In Acts 12, we learn that James, the brother of John, was beheaded and that Peter was arrested again.

In various places in Acts, Paul is arrested. In fact, here is what Paul was willing to endure over the course of many years BEFORE he was finally arrested and martyred:

2 Corinthians 11:24-26
24 Five times I received from the Jews the forty lashes minus one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods, once I was pelted with stones, three times I was shipwrecked, I spent a night and a day in the open sea, 26 I have been constantly on the move. I have been in danger from rivers, in danger from bandits, in danger from my fellow Jews, in danger from Gentiles; in danger in the city, in danger in the country, in danger at sea; and in danger from false believers.

The apostles were warned and arrested repeatedly…they had opportunities to simply shut up and go back to Galilee and their fishing nets.

Why would they endure all this suffering if they had NOT seen the risen Jesus?

 

[icamhif]

Because your theory does not account for three facts accepted almost universally by NT scholars (skeptics and believers alike):

1. Paul, the enemy of the Church who was NOT one of the disciples, was not suffering from cognitive dissonance and yet, he was dramatically converted by an appearance of the risen Jesus.
2. James, the skeptical brother of Jesus who was not one of the disciples, was not suffering from cognitive dissonance and yet, he was dramatically converted by an appearance of the risen Jesus.

With the caveat that Paul did not see Jesus physically on Earth, point taken

 

[Aloysium]

. . . Thus, Christian apologists need to disprove the cognitive dissonance theory, or at least show that the Resurrection is more plausible than that theory.

Given that the evidence for God is overwhelming
and that the vast majority of people attest
to having a relationship with the Ground of our being,
each in their own way and as part of their community,
I would think it a personal imperative,
if one denies what others see as obvious,
that one be clear that he/she is not deluding himself.

The question you should be asking yourself is
whether you are engaging in cognitive dissonance.

Buddy, we’re just giving you the heads-up.
From what you’ve written, something is going on
that prevents you from hearing the “proof”.

Had you a relationship with God,
you would know that it is better to die than to break it.
Actually, it is out of the question; knowing God how can one deny Him?

 

[icamhif]

**Given that the evidence for God is overwhelming **
and that the vast majority of people attest
to having a relationship with the Ground of our being,
each in their own way and as part of their community,
I would think it a personal imperative,
if one denies what others see as obvious,
that one be clear that he/she is not deluding himself.

As a former agnostic, I think that the arguments for God’s existence only show that belief in God is reasonable and rational, NOT something like, “If you really look at all the evidence, you’d have to be either irrational or stubborn to stay an atheist.” Atheists may call that “confimation bias;” I call that a good reason to have faith.

The question you should be asking yourself is
whether you are engaging in cognitive dissonance.

Sometimes I do. Atheists raise good arguments, sometimes.

Buddy, we’re just giving you the heads-up.
From what you’ve written, something is going on
that prevents you from hearing the “proof”.

I just said in this post that I concede your point. What more do you want?

Had you a relationship with God,
you would know that it is better to die than to break it.
Actually, it is out of the question; knowing God how can one deny Him?

One can have a relationship with God and still have doubts.