Skeptic Michael Shermer: Skepticism shaken to its core

[GodMadeMe]

By this reasoning we know that Muhammad was able to get from Mecca to the farthest mosque in Jeruselam in one night because he rode a buraq (a winged horse-like creature with a human face).

We agree that we know nothing with certainty, especially scientifically. If someone is in an elevator and it jerks a little before going to the next floor we can’t say for certain that it wasn’t hobgoblins or gremlins that did that, but when we have a possible answer that:

• has happened to many others in the past
• aligns itself with known science (in this example the mechanics of an operating elevator)
• doesn’t require calling upon the existence of that which has never ever been shown to exist

then you can’t fault me if I announce with certainty (in its common usage) that I wasn’t the possible victim of a hobgolin attack. There will be egg on my face the day hobgoblins are shown to exist, but until then I’m confident.

Yeah, not so much. Show me something that was determined true despite its long odds that could not have come to pass in a creatorless or deistic world. Something that may have been thought against the odds by proto-scientists of the first centuries C.E. would likely nowadays make perfect rational sense to a modern middle school science student.

And if it leads to the unlikelihood of there being a supernatural cause for another, the next step for some believers will to accept it, and for other believers to retreat to the “God can’t be tested” or “you’d understand if you believed” fallback position.

The physical universe operates according to measurable behavior or laws. But i can’t see how one can come to conclude the unlikelihood of a creator based on that fact alone. It seems that you have fallen into skepticism because things that have usually been explained by supernatural causes are now explained by science. But physics cannot explain the ontological existence of physics. That is not a matter of faith; it is just a fact that science is limited in what it can say about existence. Should science now say that God is the creator merely because science cannot explain the existence of physics? Of course not because science is not in the game of ontology, but rather it is in the game of measuring that which already exists in a quantifiable state.

However, physics is either a just-so-story or God is the only idea big enough to make sense of its existence. As a man of reason i don’t accept just-so-stories. I think you can relate to that as a skeptic.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

If you are an atheist, then you need to offer some evidence that you’ve investigated this and found it to be false.

What evidence do you have for rejecting this?

I know you want to deflect the question, but let’s not do that. When asked what gaps in knowledge have been filled with the supernatural and what things that were thought to be natural have been shown to be supernatural. Your responses were the Trinity and the resurrection of Jesus.

What evidence do we have of them? For the Trinity, none. Not only is it unprovable and unfalsifiable like so much in religion, but it’s not even definable. As a visitor of many CAF threads regarding defining the Trinity, no analogy works, no description holds together. It is, as the Church says, a mystery. For the resurrection, the most evidence that can be said is that a person named Jesus probably existed and he probably had followers, and that there is a series of books written a century later that say he rose from the dead.

So I brought up Muhammad. We are fairly certain he existed (with a bit more certainty that Jesus existed). We are fairly certain he had followers, and we have an ancient text talking about his supernatural act.

I am assuming that you do not believe that Muhammad rode a winged, human-faced steed one night from Mecca to Jeruselam and back, yet it falls well within the guidelines you gave to tell the world that the supernatural exists. I can dig around and find other supernatural tales that almost certainly didn’t take place and which I’m confident you don’t feel occurred.

With that being said are you still confident in stating that the tale of the resurrection of Jesus is evidence that non-christians should take as evidence of the supernatural?

Why should I do that?

Why should you do that? Because you made a claim that discoveries of things thought to be unlikely were “very good” arguments of the existence of a creator. I’m asking you to do even the most basic of leg work and present one thing that was discovered which couldn’t have occurred without a creator. There have been many things discovered that could not have been discovered or even conceived in the centuries before they were discovered. That does not mean that we should then just take the idea of a capital-c Creation because science wasn’t always as advanced as it is now.

Is your answer to how these were encountered: they found these wonderful discoveries by sheer serendipity?

Please don’t tell me you’re one of those people that confuse coincidence with divine intervention.

And some ridiculous ideas that first century peasants understood to be just ga-ga, la-la nonsense can be embraced by some of the most erudite professors.

Some things found in the past before science was as rigorous as it is today are true. The methodology then obviously was quite different but that doesn’t negate something being true. Things Pythagoras found will last forever while many things that Aristotle taught won’t.

So not sure what your point is?

I’m trying to show you that upgrades in our scientific ability don’t mean that god (yours or any other’s) necessarily exists as you implied.

 

[PRmerger]

I know you want to deflect the question, but let’s not do that.

I never deflect questions, Mike.

When asked what gaps in knowledge have been filled with the supernatural and what things that were thought to be natural have been shown to be supernatural. Your responses were the Trinity and the resurrection of Jesus.

What evidence do we have of them? For the Trinity, none.

We have divine revelation.

That you reject it as a source of information is as otiose in this discussion as it would be for a poet to say, “I only believe things that are recited in iambic pentameter. Therefore, I reject the law of noncontradiction, unless you can propose it to me in that meter.”

(You could, of course, acquiesce to this poet’s demands, but we could all agree that his rejection of any other sources of info except for his arbitrary one would be rather…weird, right?)

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

The physical universe operates according to measurable behavior or laws. But i can’t see how one can come to conclude the unlikelihood of a creator based on that fact alone.

There is much we still don’t know and the door is open (even to me) of the universe’s origins. Stephen Hawking and other theoretical physicists will likely never fully explain how it all came together, but so far they have given the world far more demonstrable understanding of the universe’s beginnings than any preacher.

It seems that you have fallen into skepticism because things that have usually been explained by supernatural causes are now explained by science.

It definitely helps my case. Like I said, so far much of what was defined as supernatural in origin has been shown to be natural. So far as we have determined, people aren’t possessed by spirits like the Bible and the Church say; but instead have physical or psychological issues – some of which we can diagnose and some that we can even treat or cure.

But physics cannot explain the ontological existence of physics. That is not a matter of faith; it is just a fact that science is limited in what it can say about existence.

That’s because science, unlike religion, has the courtesy to say “I don’t know”.

Should science now say that God is the creator merely because science cannot explain the existence of physics? Of course not because science is not in the game of ontology, but rather it is in the game of measuring that which already exists in a quantifiable state.

We shouldn’t fill in our gaps of knowledge with God. We shouldn’t just assume that gaps in our knowledge will be filled by science, but it is wholely reasonable to think that the odds that science will fill such a gap are far greater for science than God.

 

[tonyrey]

You know, Tony, you should REALLY

Which is precisely the implication of:

This “coercive” stuff only exists in your imagination.

Quite apart from the fact that Pallas is obviously ignorant of the meaning of an ad hominem fallacy, thereby making his infringement of the forum rule of courtesy even more unjustified…

 

[PRmerger]

There is much we still don’t know and the door is open (even to me) of the universe’s origins. Stephen Hawking and other theoretical physicists will likely never fully explain how it all came together, but so far they have given the world far more demonstrable understanding of the universe’s beginnings than any preacher.

This sounds again like the Science of the Gaps.

Great faith indeed is being espoused here on the CAFs!

 

[PRmerger]

Not only is it unprovable and unfalsifiable like so much in religion, but it’s not even definable.

Undefinable? Like so many things in the sciences you mean?

facebook.com/EDSDscienceClub/posts/167652340093907

books.google.com/books?id=j5eYcEiVasAC&pg=PA101&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=AfZUFmT-cZMC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

quora.com/Why-is-consciousness-so-poorly-defined

What’s it called when you permit for yourself what you object to in others?

(Perhaps that term, too, is not really definable, but I have a great term in my mind for what it’s called).

For the resurrection, the most evidence that can be said is that a person named Jesus probably existed and he probably had followers, and that there is a series of books written a century later that say he rose from the dead.

You mean 4 decades later, at most.

So I brought up Muhammad. We are fairly certain he existed (with a bit more certainty that Jesus existed). We are fairly certain he had followers, and we have an ancient text talking about his supernatural act.

I am assuming that you do not believe that Muhammad rode a winged, human-faced steed one night from Mecca to Jeruselam and back, yet it falls well within the guidelines you gave to tell the world that the supernatural exists. I can dig around and find other supernatural tales that almost certainly didn’t take place and which I’m confident you don’t feel occurred.

Yes. As a Christian I am quite confident they did not occur.

With that being said are you still confident in stating that the tale of the resurrection of Jesus is evidence that non-christians should take as evidence of the supernatural?

Indeed, I am.

You have to explain why these alleged witnesses would lie about it firstly.

And then explain why they didn’t retract this lie when questioned about it.

And why they endured torture and died horrific deaths still proclaiming the Good News with a smile on their lips and peace in their hearts.

Why should you do that? Because you made a claim that discoveries of things thought to be unlikely were “very good” arguments of the existence of a creator

Nope. Never did that. Please cite the post you are referring to.

Please don’t tell me you’re one of those people that confuse coincidence with divine intervention.

I don’t.

But then again, how do you prove it wasn’t divine intervention?

I always entertain the possibility.

That seems like the…scientific…

and open-minded…

thing to do, eh?

I’m trying to show you that upgrades in our scientific ability don’t mean that god (yours or any other’s) necessarily exists as you implied.

No one has implied anything like that here, as far as I can tell. “Upgrades in our scientific ability mean that my God necessarily exists?” What a peculiar assertion!

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

We have divine revelation.

You do realize that other non-Christian religions also have divine revelation. You reject them, correct? If so, why should I trust the Christian ones and not the others?

That you reject it as a source of information is as otiose in this discussion as it would be for a poet to say, “I only believe things that are recited in iambic pentameter. Therefore, I reject the law of noncontradiction, unless you can propose it to me in that meter.”

It’s not the method that’s the problem so much as the verifiability of that information. If someone had a divine revelation that could be demonstrated to be true, that would be fine. Weird, but fine. The problem is that what is claimed to be divinely revealed is just as unprovable and unfalsifiable as that of the ancient text.

It would be like if I tried to show you that Sherlock Holmes was real by giving you a copy of “The Hound of the Baskervilles” instead of something more concrete like a birth certifcate or newspaper report on a crime he solved. Then when you doubted me instead of giving you any of that concrete evidence I gave you some kid’s book report on “The Hound of the Baskervilles”

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Imagine if Fleming had simply dismissed the possibility of food having antibacterial properties…

Then someone else would have made the discovery.

Do you know how many scientific theories by “kooks” have been proven to be correct and are now embraced by the naysayers?

Some, probably. But that is not the point.

Nope. I embrace none of the Marian apparitions. I simply accept them as approved or hoax based on the authority of the Church.

Well, that says it all. The blind leads the unsighted.

Yes. Dedicated. Perhaps you should study a bit what it means to be a baptized Christian.

Been there, done it, had a t-shirt to prove it.

Because I don’t think it is the best tool.

Ah, so. I wonder what kind of a method you use to find is method “A” is superior to method “B”. I would use the age old “which one performs better” type of reasoning. Tony had a problem with the method I suggested, and his problem was that it would be “TOO GOOD”. Using his words: “it would rob us our freedom to choose what to believe” (what nonsense!). Yours looks like that mine is not good enough - since you have a “better” method.

What is your preference? To have a “miracle” which would be impossible to deny, or the one which can be explained away rather easily? I know that in some circles it is very important to have “deniability”, namely in shadowy realm of illegal government operations. When certain sub-rosa actions are authorized - never in writing - so they can be denied if the proverbial substance hits the fan. Now why would that be a good principle when it comes to “imperfect miracles” - that I cannot fathom.

Now let’s go back to the “fast dismissal” of certain claims. Similar claims to those have been proposed, investigated and found incorrect. Paranormal or supernatural, it does not matter. How many times would you prefer to investigate those or similar claims, especially since you would not have to foot the bill? An old saying comes to mind:

Do you want a Cadillac?
No, I cannot afford it.
But what if your neighbor pays for it?
Ah, in that cat case I want it, and want it now!

It is easy to be generous with other people’s money.

And one more observation. Debunking the nonsensical propositions does not lead anywhere. James Randi and his foundation has exposed many con-artists, but the hoaxers usually just change their names, and continue to exploit the believers. Peter Popov and other faith healers, Uri Geller and his ilk are fine and dandy, since the believers do not use their brain, they just blindly follow whatever “authority” they happen to trust.

 

[GodMadeMe]

It definitely helps my case.i

Logically speaking it really doesn’t help anyones case because you first have to assume that the criteria for a reasonable case for or against God’s existence is based on whether or not God had a hand in some particular physical event in space-time.

That’s because science, unlike religion, has the courtesy to say “I don’t know”.

And yet you don’t have the courtesy to realize that the case for God’s existence is not dependent on whether events are naturally controlled or supernaturally controlled.

We shouldn’t fill in our gaps of knowledge with God. We shouldn’t just assume that gaps in our knowledge will be filled by science, but it is wholely reasonable to think that the odds that science will fill such a gap are far greater for science than God.

Based on what? Science is limited to measuring physical events. It cannot explain why physical things exist rather than not exist. Why do physical laws exist. There is no physical explanation for that. It’s a Just-so-story.

 

[tonyrey]

You know, Tony, you should REALLY learn what an “ad hominem fallacy” is. If a poster would say about another that she is a drooling idiot, that is NOT an ad hominem. It may be rude, but not an “ad hominem”. If, however one would say that the argument presented is unacceptable, because the proponent is a drooling idiot, that would be an ad hominem fallacy. It is a cheap trick to invoke an incorrect “ad hominem” when you run out of arguments. As SonofMan correctly pointed out you flip-flop between being able to choose what you believe and having that ability removed by a “coercive” miracle. A typical example of “doublethink”. And, no, that is NOT an ad hominem.

You are mistaken:

This “coercive” stuff only exists in your imagination.

A classic example of evading an argument by denigrating one’s opponent:

Definition of ad hominem in English:

** adverb& adjective**

1(Of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Oxford Dictionary

Just one convincing event suffices.

For whom?

For any open-minded person.

Are you qualified to guess that an inexplicable cure is not motivated by compassion?

The “motivation” is irrelevant. A properly executed miracle would allow us to make meaningful decisions. We would not have to have “blind faith” about God’s existence, we would KNOW. Even if God would reveal his exact demands for our “salvation”, that would still allow us to choose to comply or not. Some people might not choose to be “saved”.

You seem to have forgotten your strong objection to the lack of privacy entailed by an omniscient Being - which implies the exact opposite of your present argument. When confronted with such power you would be a trembling wreck.

You obviously cannot grasp the distinction between scientifically inexplicable events and those which are ludicrous…

Scientifically inexplicable would be the regeneration of a lost limb. Even though the regrowth of lost body parts is quite frequent in nature. Ludicrous would be walking on water…

The regeneration of a lost limb is an excellent example of a coercive miracle because not only is it scientifically inexplicable it has never happened to a human being. It also demonstrates the absurdity of the claim that the motive is irrelevant - when it is unquestionably compassion.

Walking on water is not only scientifically inexplicable but understandable if the alternative is being drowned - and only ludicrous to some one who fails to understand the motive. It would be ludicrous if it lacked a rational explanation but of course science is impersonal and cannot take humanity or morality into account…

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Undefinable? Like so many things in the sciences you mean?

facebook.com/EDSDscienceClub/posts/167652340093907

books.google.com/books?id=j5eYcEiVasAC&pg=PA101&lpg#v=onepage&q&f=false

books.google.com/books?id=AfZUFmT-cZMC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq#v=onepage&q&f=false

quora.com/Why-is-consciousness-so-poorly-defined

Oh no, there’s still a lot we don’t know about how the mind works! Clearly then we must scrap it and say we’ll never figure it out, or that the soul does all work. And while this is a field where we have only scratched the surface, there are some things that we know.

Please show those same pieces of verifiable evidence in how the Trinity works. Give us something where we don’t have to believe in the Christian god but can still demonstrate some aspect of its factuality. Oh wait, it’s a mystery:

237 The Trinity is a mystery of faith in the strict sense, one of the “mysteries that are hidden in God, which can never be known unless they are revealed by God”.58 To be sure, God has left traces of his Trinitarian being in his work of creation and in his Revelation throughout the Old Testament. But his inmost Being as Holy Trinity is a mystery that is inaccessible to reason alone or even to Israel’s faith before the Incarnation of God’s Son and the sending of the Holy Spirit

What’s it called when you permit for yourself what you object to in others?

PRmergering?

You mean 4 decades later, at most.

The book of John may have been as late as 100 C.E. so more like 7 decades (assuming Jesus existed and assume he died in the early 30s C.E.)

Yes. As a Christian I am quite confident they did not occur.

Good.

Indeed, I am.

You have to explain why these alleged witnesses would lie about it firstly.

And then explain why they didn’t retract this lie when questioned about it.

And why they endured torture and died horrific deaths still proclaiming the Good News with a smile on their lips and peace in their hearts.

Wouldn’t die for a lie, huh? I’ve got some good videos on that but I don’t want to just leave links. Let me work up a summary and post the links as well.

Nope. Never did that. Please cite the post you are referring to.

Post 158, a mere 3 hours ago:

The problem is that I think it’s reasonable to say that if testing fails repeatedly then the chances of it being true are almost nil.

Probably.

And that’s a very good argument for all of the scientific discoveries that were discovered against the odds…as being guided by the Creator.

You were linking how one might find something highly unlikely at one point and then show it true much later with being a good argument for the Creator. I explained how science grows and can often determine things better as time goes on, and that’s a function of science and not of a Creator. I also explained that in order for one of these once-highly-unlikely things would point to a Creator would be by showing it couldn’t have come about naturally.

I don’t.

But then again, how do you prove it wasn’t divine intervention?

I always entertain the possibility.

That seems like the…scientific…

and open-minded…

thing to do, eh?

How come you have dismissed the divine revelations of the Baha’i? You seem confident that only your faith possesses it.

No one has implied anything like that here, as far as I can tell. “Upgrades in our scientific ability mean that my God necessarily exists?” What a peculiar assertion!

It’s a rephrasing of your earlier malformed argument that I discussed above where you linked the idea that one might one day see something as implausible and then much later determined that it was quite plausible as a “very good” argument for the existence of a creator. I explained how the changes in how plausible we think something is with our improvements in science. So if you still hold to the argument it then states that upgrades in scientific abiility is a very good argument fo the existence of a creator, which is not correct. The peculiar assertion is yours alone.

 

[Bradski]

The regeneration of a lost limb is an excellent example of a coercive miracle…

Well Fatima pops up with depressing regularity. It that a coercive miracle? Probably not, as you’d have to rely on eyewitness accounts and they could be unreliable so believing it is almost an act of faith.

But what about Zetoun? You could have gone to Egypt at any time over a period of three years and seen, I mean actually seen, the mother of Jesus. This is not a one-off dancing sun, or someone recovering from illness or someone finding the strength to lift a car or close a door. This is Mary appearing before millions. For hours at a time. Week after week for years.

If you accept this as a miracle, then please explain to me why this cannot be described as coercive. If you were there and saw her, the there wouldn’t be any doubt. You would not be able to choose whether to believe or not. There would be no room for faith. She appeared in person. Surely this must be the greatest single event in Chritianity since the resurrection (and a lot of Catholics would not have heard of it!)

So, Tony. If this was indeed a miracle, then you have no free will to decide if it’s true or not. You can’t decide to reject as untrue the presence of the Virgin Mary. Especially as the Coptic church verified it as being a bond fide miracle. And show me some pictures of this incredibly well documented event - pictures that no doubt would help convince you that it really happened.

If you do not think it was a miracle - something seen by millions for years, within our lifetime, filmed and photographed, investigated and reported upon, then please explain the difference between this miracle and Fatima.

To save you time, I’ll explain the difference…

Everyone claims Fatima because there is no hard evidence. Only reports. Only someone writing about what someone else said they saw. So ‘It’s true! how can you not believe!’ No-one can actually show that it was a hoax, or a mistake or anything other than a miracle. Any given Christian can take the high ground and it’s virtually impossible to counter the arguments.

But Zeitoun? Well, what a laugh. If you can come up with any pictures of this that don’t look make me chuckle, the go for it. No-one claims this as a miracle. Because there is no hard evidence, despite millions having seen it for over three years. You’d look foolish trying to justify it and therein lies the difference.

You believe that no-one can prove you wrong regarding Fatima, but the minute we have a miracle where they should be (but isn’t) incontrovertible proof, then we have…deathly silence.

Don’t talk to me about skepticism. Let’s talk gullibility. The other side of the coin. Are you gullible enough to think that Mary made regular visits to Egypy for a period of three years?

 

[PRmerger]

You do realize that other non-Christian religions also have divine revelation. You reject them, correct? If so, why should I trust the Christian ones and not the others?

Ok. For the sake of this discussion you’re going to have to concede a few points:

God exists.
Jesus of Nazareth existed.
Jesus had a body of believers who started a Church which worshipped him.

Are you good with this? Then we can dialogue.

 

[Pallas_Athene]

A classic example of evading an argument by denigrating one’s opponent:

No kidding? To say that the story only exists in your imagination is just a euphemism for “You are wrong”. I can imagine a future conversation, where you say something obviously incorrect (which happens 99.999% of the time) and when I say: “Sorry, Tony, you are mistaken” and you start screaming about “Ad Hominem!!! You attacked ME!”

When confronted with such power you would be a trembling wreck.

Your prediction is incorrect. (Oops! I am guilty of another “ad hominem” attack on po’ wittle tony… woe is me!)

The regeneration of a lost limb is an excellent example of a coercive miracle because not only is it scientifically inexplicable it has never happened to a human being.

Coercive in what respect? Is actual knowledge coercive? When I learned that the area of a circle is r[sup]2[/sup]pi, it certainly “deprived” me of the erroneous “belief” that the area of the circle is 2r*pi… that is true. But what is so valuable about a false belief??? It most certainly would NOT coerce me to go down on my knee and start worshipping God.

It also demonstrates the absurdity of the claim that the motive is irrelevant - when it is unquestionably compassion.

One of these days, you should go back and read your own old posts, so you could avoid shooting yourself in the foot. You said that a miracle should be compassionate (not just display raw power), and having a limb regrown would be a sign of “compassion”, and now you argue against yourself… is this another “ad hominem”?

Walking on water is not only scientifically inexplicable but understandable if the alternative is being drowned - and only ludicrous to some one who fails to understand the motive. It would be ludicrous if it lacked a rational explanation but of course science is impersonal and cannot take humanity or morality into account…

What kind of rational explanation do you have in mind? I know now… there were some prepared steps right under the surface of the water, so Jesus SEEMED to walk on water, when he was simply cheating. Use your own eyes and see it for yourself… right here: youtube.com/watch?v=dycpIPTFJ04

 

[Pallas_Athene]

Ok. For the sake of this discussion you’re going to have to concede a few points:

God exists.
Jesus of Nazareth existed.
Jesus had a body of believers who started a Church which worshipped him.

Are you good with this? Then we can dialogue.

What a joke! Let’s translate: “For the sake of discussion, you are going to concede that everything I say is true, and everything you say is false”… Then we can have a dialogue. The joke of the century!

 

[PRmerger]

What a joke! Let’s translate: “For the sake of discussion, you are going to concede that everything I say is true, and everything you say is false”… Then we can have a dialogue. The joke of the century!

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

There is many a thoughtful atheist who can understand that certain points can be conceded and granted as provisionally true for the sake of the discussion.

That you cannot…well, it speaks volumes.

But there are some here who are capable of suspending their disbelief for the enjoyment of an intellectual exercise.

Perhaps you can follow the dialogue and learn how to do this.

If, of course, the atheist actually steps up to the plate to continue the dialogue by admitting certain concepts which are mutually independent of his actual beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

What’s it called when you permit for yourself what you object to in others?

PRmergering?

sigh

I had great hopes for you and me to dialogue.

Alas.

Buh-bye.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

PRmerger, regarding your die for lie argument. Here’s a video series by a gentleman named Mitch take apart the argument. It’s not fair to just point an hour worth of video and say “Watch this!” so I just went through it gave a decent summary of the content of the videos, although I would suggest watching it as he is very good.

Part 1

The argument is as follows:

1. There was a group of people composed of sane, rational actors who:
   (A) claimed they had seen and interacted with a bodily resurrected Jesus;
   (B) who preached a message that had as its centerpiece Jesus’ resurrection.
2. As the direct and exclusive result of their claim and their preaching this message, the members of this group of people were killed – martyred (often in exceedingly gruesome ways) – but they went to their deaths willingly and without recanting.
3. Sane, ractional actors would not willingly give up their lives for what they know to be false.
4. Since these people – sane, rational actors all – did willingly give up their lives as the direct and exclusive result of preaching the resurrection ofJesus, these people must have witnessed and interaced with a bodily resurrected Jesus.
5. Therefore Jesus must have been raised from the dead.

The argument propses that this group of people are not just mere believers but those who lived with Jesus.

Now the question becomes who should be included in this group of people.

Josh McDowell gives the following list:

1. Peter
2. Andrew
3. Matthew
4. John
5. James, son of Alpheus
6. Philip
7. Simon
8. Thaddeus
9. James, brother of Jesus
10. Thomas
11. Bartholomew
12. James, son of Zebedee

Part 2

Acts 10:40-41
The criteria given as to who should be included says, “God raised [Jesus] up on the third day and granted that he should become visible, not to all people, but to witnesses chosen beforehand by God, tha is, to us, who ate and drank with [Jesus] after he arose from the dead.”

Caveat A: Matthias should be on the list. Acts 1:21-22 identifies Matthias as one of the men who accompanied the Apostles during the time of the resurrection and also identified him as a witness to the resurrection. He was chosen to fill the place once held by Judas Ascariot. Acts 1:21-26 is the only place in scripture where Matthias is identified. There is dispute as to how he died. Some say he died of natural causes, others say he was crucified, while others say he survived stoning and was then beheaded. We don’t know. His inclusion on the list wouldn’t likely hurt the argument and might be why he’s often left out.

Caveat B: What about Nathanael of Cana? John 21 describes the third time Jesus was manifested to the disciples after being raised from the dead. Jesus is said to be cooking breakfast on the beach when 7 of the disciples show up including Nathaneal of Cana. John’s gospel is the only one that mentions Nathanael. Apologists try to assert that Batholomew as mentioned in the synoptic gospels is another name for Nathanael. For the sake of time, Mitch agrees to let it go.

Also Mark and Matthew each list someone called Thaddeus but the only Judas listed is Judas Iscariot. Luke and Acts each have someone called Judas, son of James, but no Thaddeus. John doesn’t list all 12 apostles and has someone called Judas “not Iscariot”. Apologies assert here as well that Thaddeus and Judas, son of James, are the same person.

Caveat C: Cleopas and an unnamed fellow disciple. Luke 24 talks about these two followers of Jesus on a Sunday after the cruciiction. They meet with Jesus but their eyes were prevented from recognizing him. They ask Jesus to stay in town for the night. At dinner Jesus breaks and blesses some bread and then recognize him as Jesus. Then Jesus vanished from their sight. The two run to Jeruselam to tell the remaining apostles when in the middle of their story Jesus appears again. Jesus ate a piece of fish to show he wasn’t a ghost. Cleopas and his companion are never mentioned anywhere else and we don’t know how they died.

Part 3

Caveat D: The McDowell list and other lists have James, brother of Jesus; but the gospels don’t have James with the apostles or with the larger group that followed Jesus during his lifetime. The gospels repeatedly say that his brothers didn’t believe in him. See John 7:5. Mark 3 talks about Jesus choosing disciples and his family came to take him since they thought he was out of his mind. No New Testament text says anything about James converting or being in any of the eating or drinking scenes. Only in 1 Corinthians 15:7 it says that Jesus appeared to James. No details are given. Matthew notes that seeing the risen Jesus by itself wasn’t enough to inspire faith. Galatians 1:19 has Paul describe James as an apostle and Galatians 2:9 describes him as one of the pillars. Mitch believes the reason why apologists list James as one of the apostles is because they believe a non-Christian, Josephus, attests to James’ martyrdom – which he’ll get to later.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

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

Caveat E: McDowell’s list and most others don’t have Paul. But for those that do Paul never ate or drank with the resurrected Jesus the way the other apostles were purported to have done.

Caveat F: None of the women who interacted with the risen Jesus are included in any of the lists.

Three problems with the wouldn’t die for a lie argument

1. It ignores the tremendous and demonstrated power of cognitive (or psychological) dissonance management among religious believers.
2. The argument does not appear to be rooted in or consistent with the Christian scriptures.
3. The argument has little, if any meaningful evidence to support it.

Point 1: After 50 years of study we know that when religious believers experience significant disappointment (such as a failed prophecy) religious believers try to neutralize the cognitive dissonance caused by such a disappoint and reestablish cognitive consonance without sacrificing their religious beliefs. The best writing on this is an article called “When Prophecy Fails and Faith Persists: A Theoretical Overview” by Lorne L. Dawson.

Part 3

One of the common modes to deal with religious disappointment is to deny failure. Jesus wasn’t defeated by death, he was victorious over it. The description of how Jesus defeated death was developed over time. Early on in the scripture Jesus is depicted after death as a spirit, but later scripture gives him a physical body. People who use these kinds of dissonance management tools tend to feel more united with one another. Persecution can also increase their beliefs.

Part 4

Point 2: The scriptures don’t indicate that Jesus’s resurrection got the apostle up and preaching. In Mark, news of the resurrection inspires fear. In Luke, after the risen Jesus leaves they spend 40 days praying. In John, the apostles go back to fishing. In Acts, it’s the Holy Spirit and not the resurrection that causes them to go out and preach.

The scripture depict the death of only one of the apostles, James, son of Zebedee. Acts 12:1-3 talks about Herod oppressing Chrisitans. It makes no indication that James was murdered because he claimed that Jesus raised from the dead or that he was martyred or giving him an opportunity to recant to avoid being killed. There’s nothing to suggest that Herod Agrippa did this because of theological reasons and not political ones. Herod Agrippa had been given the title “King of the Jews” and there were Christians there who claimed they were followers of man who claimed he was the king of the Jews. Monarchs rarely permit rivals.

Part 5

Point 3: The tradition of the apostles’ martyrdom goes back to the beginning of the third century.

John - Most Christians say he is not a martyr. There is a minority who say that Matthew 20:20-23 shows he must be a martyr otherwise Jesus would be wrong. Jesus asks John and James if they would drink the cup I am about to drink (referring to his imminent execution. They said they would and the scripture said they would surely drink from the cup then they must be executed as well. It should be noted that the parallel passage of Mark 10:35-40 has John and James make the request as opposed to their mother. There is also a tale of Domition trying to boil John in oil, but it didn’t kill him so Domition exiled John to Patmos. There is another tale where Nero exiled John to Patmos 30 years earlier – which indicates how much we can trust these tales.

James, brother of Jesus - Book 20, Chapter 9, Paragraph 1 in Jewish Antiquities - Ananus was appointed as high priest and “brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others.” He “formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law” and “delivered them to be stoned.” The locals were not happy about this because “it was unlawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrin without [the roman procurator’s] consent.” Ananus was removed and replaced with Jesus, son of Damneus. In the list of Jewish high priests the name Jesus appears several times.