However, first let me state that you yourself argued against my line of argumentation in the resurrection post as it was not 'empirical' enough for you, ex., you said we cannot know that if the texts are reliable for sure, etc. Basically, you were skeptical of it because it is not 'testable' in the strict sense of the word, i.e., it is not considered normal scientific, ‘empirical’ evidence. Second, you yourself have rejected eye witness testimony-in the Socrates case for example-as it was 'not empirical' enough for you.
Not exactly. I wouldn’t use the phrase "not empirical enough", but rather not testable or not solid evidence. An analogy could be made to big foot sightings. Numerous people claim to have seen big foot and many have plaster casts of its footprints and samples of its hair. But all of these bits of potential evidence can be explained by other means, so they are not solid enough to support the claim that big foot exists.
So, what is the resurrection argument? Well, at one particular moment in history God did become a man and walked this earth. At that moment, evidence was ‘empirical’ as Christ walked, talked, died, and lived again. I posted it because I wanted to show that there was ‘empirical evidence’ for Christianity at one point and that we can use history to point to that evidence. What we have today is a historical argument that analyzes events that happened in the past, something not empirical in and of itself. We look back to see if there really was a person named Jesus who lived and died and lived again. IF someone raised from the dead, as I said before, then there should be some historical evidence for it and that would point to empirical evidence for Christianity at one point in history (and I hoped this would be interesting to you).
Drat, it baffles me that you consider this a satisfying argument. The fallacies are just so obvious. You phrased your point in a very creative way, for that I will give you credit. But this is actually the more appropriate way to phrase it:
We have historical accounts that around 2,000 years ago a man named Jesus performed miracles and claimed to be the son of god. This man was purported to be crucified by Rome, buried, and rose 3 days later, made himself known to his followers, then vanished from the earth. Now, this is the myth of Jesus, it is not actual history. Your claim is that it is actual history. But we cannot know it is actual history because we don’t have evidence that is reliable enough to verify these extraordinary events. If one scales down the assertions of the events, it becomes far less extraordinary and much more believable.
We have historical accounts that a man some 2,000 years ago claimed to be a holy prophet. He preached a not-uncommon message of love and hope to a world of divisive, tribal superstitious people. This person so enraged the established powers that he was put to death and yet inspired a group of followers who began to spread his message, often exaggerating his feats in order to inspire others.Now this claim is far less extraordinary and thus much more believable. It is still not historically verifiable, but it doesn’t have to be to be accepted. We know that even today such people exist, so there’s little reason to doubt such an event occurred 2,000 years ago. This makes this version of the story far more likely to be correct.
Unfortunately, we never really got going on the resurrection, we could not get to the evidence because you were so skeptical of the historical steps required to get there.
And I have every right to be skeptical of a mostly oral tradition that is over 2,000 years old.
To sum it up, I am right to assert that there is no empirical evidence for God today. There are numerous philosophical (rationalistic) arguments that are very persuasive and an argument via history that empirical evidence was once available.
Right and wrong. Right that there is no empirical evidence today. Right that there are compelling philosophical arguments. But wrong that empirical evidence was once available. As I said above, this is merely an assumption. Because you believe the story, you place value on the historical accounts, which you assume to be true. But the historical accounts should be evaluated completely on their own, regardless of one’s belief in Jesus. And even if one accepts the philosophical arguments for god, those arguments do not necessarily support the Jesus myth.
This does not entail there is NO evidence for God, for belief in God is a very reasonable proposition. All evidences should be considered when weighing the truthfulness of a proposition.
It is this kind of circular logic that confounds me. You say there is no empirical evidence for god, yet you say it is reasonable to believe in it, but that "all evidences" should be considered. I counter by saying that there is no empirical evidence for big foot, but because there are good arguments for it both philosophically and conjecturally, it must be reasonable to believe that big foot exists. This is the very same logic you use. I stand firmly that there is no empirical evidence for god, all historical evidence is too flimsy to accept as valid and even though the philosophical arguments are compelling, they scarcely support the mythological framework of the revealed religions. So god could very well exist, but we have no evidence of it; it does virtually nothing and never makes itself known to anyone.
I have been strongly arguing this entire time that there is more than just empirical evidence in this world that one should consider.
Yet when pressed, all you ever offer is flimsy historical traditions of a largely mythical Jesus. I’m sorry, drat, but your form of logic confounds me. Where is all this evidence you speak of? Of what form does it take?
To consider ONLY empirical evidence, as you stated you were doing in our previous discussions, is faulty (and commits a logical fallacy). That is my major concern here. I'm not arguing that one system is 'better' than the other, but I am arguing that when one accepts all evidences, empirical and non-empirical, then that is better.
Drat, you seem to just go round and round on this. You continuously state that something other than empirical evidence is both available and valuable. The only thing other than empirical evidence that I now of is philosophical arguments, and I’ve given you my opinion on that already. So, what else is there?
Empirical: hard, testable evidence
Philosophical: arguments based on logic & beer
Other:
To quickly this: empirical evidence and testing can demonstrate that if you put poison in your grandmother's tea that she will die. However, it cannot ever tell you if such a thing is right or not. For that, we must enter into the metaphysical world of ethics. Neither can it by itself tell you how to define her ‘personhood,’ and for that you need to consider philosophy.
On this I actually agree. What you are really talking about are value judgments, and empirical data is not useful there. Perhaps you misunderstood my insistence on empiricism to incorporate all manner of human existence. You are mistaken.
Basically, the issue is not philosophy or other predominately non-physical disciplines in war against science or empirical evidence, rather what I am arguing against is your premise that ONLY empirical evidence is valuable and all other evidences should be treated as extremely suspect or invaluable. As we can see from the example, all have their roles and are helpful- empiricism tells what will happen, ethics tells what is right, and philosophy tells us what constitutes a person.
Yes, you have most definitely misunderstood my position. The concept of value judgments has never come up in our discussions, so there was never a need to discuss how it relates to empiricism. You’ve just extrapolated what you think I believe, and you’re mistaken. We can put that straw man to rest now, thank you.
Now, what I think you are reacting to here though is my assertion of "So, if pure empiricism is logically fallacious and problematic, what do we replace it with?" Yet notice the important word I used here- 'PURE' empiricism. This is not a rejection of empirical evidence, but of your empiricism only view. I simply wish to replace your view of 'pure' empiricism with a high view of probability. Yet I am not so sure that this is a bankrupt idea. This probability view would be a major component of critical realism (you can see my views leaking into this) and critical realism is the dominant epistemology in science today, held by theists and non theists alike.
I’m not sure I understand most of this babbling. But to address a more salient point, I only claim that empiricism is the way we deal with solving problems in the real world, of making sound determinations about our universe. Probability itself is bound to empiricism, if you are talking about statistics, that is. You cannot separate statistics from empiricism because statistics is merely a framework of evaluating empirical data and nothing more.
Nor have I stated that philosophy in and of itself is the answer. I think maybe you misunderstand me here. However, I am arguing strenuously that empiricism alone is an incomplete view of the universe, because it is. Therein lies the conflict. You have stated previously that if something is not empirical, then you reject it (you have said it on numerous occasions, especially back in Jan. And Feb.) so I am reacting against this view. One piece of evidence is not 'better' than the others, but all are important and I just think you should consider them all and not just empiricism.
Right, you have stated that there is empirical evidence of a man named Jesus who died and was reborn, but I reject that as false evidence, or non-evidence, because it cannot be verified or tested. You have argued that there is a good philosophical argument for god, and I agree that there are compelling philosophical arguments, but that they are simply not convincing to me. I stated that if someone makes claims about the universe, then they must back up their claims with empirical evidence, and I stand by that, as virtually every scientist and critical thinker does, and so should you. Would you believe my claims that an invisible pink unicorn lives in my garage? But if you want to discuss whether dark chocolate is better than milk chocolate, then we are talking value judgments and not empiricism and I’m fine with that.
And again, you keep saying there are “other” pieces of evidence. So what are they?
Empirical: hard, testable evidence
Philosophical: arguments based on logic & beer
Other:
Yea, I'm pretty sure this is not the case JD. For example, the cosmological argument put forth by Aristotle is perfectly compatible with theism (Christianity and Islam). It does not short circuit the definition of the Christian God, as Christians use it all the time. It is very compatible with both Christianity and Islam (for example, the Kalam cosmological argument was originally created by Muslims and then later employed by Christians). So, there is nothing in the classical 'proofs' that short circuits Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc.
I said “most”, not all, philosophical arguments, drat. I did not mention any specific argument. You just cherry picked one that you like and then argued that I specifically pointed to that one, which I did not. That is a logical fumble.
Now you are correct that these proofs cannot in and of themselves demonstrate the Christian God in particular, as they only point to A god.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! Finally an admission of reality!
But remember we must take this in steps. First we must convince someone there is a God and then we can build a case for why the Christian God is the correct understanding. So, the classical arguments are VERY helpful and do not short circuit at all, but instead they can be the 'first point' in a Christian argument.
Sure, I agree with this approach. But, sadly, there is a divide that is impassable. You may convince someone that “god” exists through philosophy, but to get from generic “god” to a resurrected Jesus would require…drum roll, please…empirical evidence! Why? Because you have now claimed that god has intervened in our universe and if you make that claim, you have to back it up with empirical evidence, and that you do not have. Philosophy just can't prove that Jesus existed at all, or that he was god incarnate. In fact, even if you were successful in providing evidence that Jesus existed, performed miracles, died and was reborn, you would still be hard press to show that it was god and not “something else” that was behind this feat.
Christianity would vigorously argue that God is not empirical, that is he exist as spirit- so I am not sure what you mean.
What I’m saying is that the vast majority of Christians believe in a god that interacts with the universe, and if that were true, it would be empirically testable. Because all such tests are false, such notions are also false. For example, since tests of the efficacy of prayer healing are not positive, then either god does not exist or Christians are wrong and god does not heal people who are prayed for. Either way, I am right. Either god does not exist or it does exist but does not intervene in our universe.
So, if a person accepts the fact that a deity exists like the philosophical arguments point to (an eternal, uncaused person, etc.), then it is easy to point them to Christianity.
No, I totally disagree. This is just a non sequitur. If you do prove that a “god” exists, then you have to do the work to prove that this god is the Christian god. There is no evidence that just points to this being true.
I would still like you to answer my question. You stated previously that only empirical evidence is reliable, but this statement in and of itself cannot be proven by empirical evidence, therefore following your own system you are advocating a view that you yourself cannot not hold. How is this possible?
Basically because your statement is nonsense. If you rephrase your question, it might make some sense. It is not appropriate to ask if empiricism is reliable for everything in the universe. That would mean that I would have to use some form of empiricism to decide if I want to listen to Judas Priest or R.E.M. in my stereo right now. But I don’t need empiricism for that. Right now I just “feel” like listening to R.E.M., so I think I’ll put it in. Ah, that’s better. Now, if I unscramble your question to sound more like this, it might make sense:
Question: what is the best method to answer questions of how our universe works?
Answer: the scientific method.
Question: what is the best method to determine what makes people happy?
Answer: philosophy.
How do I know these things? Simple. In order to know the answer to something about the physical universe, one needs information. To get it, one must observe the universe, test it, and observe the reaction. There is simply no other way to get information, or at least no way that we are aware of. One cannot learn the size or age of the universe by discussing it; one must take some kind of measurement. If you want to argue that we cannot know for certain that what we observe is really the universe and not some virtual simulation, then you are in another realm entirely. Sure, I agree that it is not possible to know this, but short of assuming that nothing is real and we are all just
brains in a jar, such notions are of no value. So far as we “know” the universe is real and we were not just created 10 minutes ago. From that basic assumption everything else flows. If I am mistaken about that basic assumption, then I really don’t care because absolutely none of our ideas or thoughts mean what we think they do, including all of your philosophical ideas.
My point was to show a contradiction in your thought - that when you state that only empirical evidence is reliable, you are making a philosophical statement and not a scientific one. You have always responded back in the past that 'this is why I hate philosophy' or 'philosophy cannot prove anything so we must have empiricism' but this misses the point. We replace your positivism with a high view of probability, and an understanding that we are not rejecting empirical evidence here but are instead simply accepting empirical evidence as well as all other evidences. Yet the question remains, how would you solve the contradiction in your system?
Again, what other evidence? This is getting annoyingly repetitious by now. This is your contradiction, that you continue to assert that empirical evidence is not available. I've acknowledged your philosophical arguments as compelling, yet not convincing. But you continue to assert that there are "other" forms of evidence. So, what are they?
Empirical: hard, testable evidence
Philosophical: arguments based on logic & beer
Other:
Again, probability is an empirical exercise. There is no contradiction in my “system”. You simply view it as a contraction because you have constructed a framework of your own. My view of the world is no different than virtually every scientist. If you want to answer a question about how the universe works, you have to use empirical data. Even theistic scientists, such as Francis Collins and Ken Miller, agree with me on this. If you want to discuss value judgments, then philosophy is fine. The two cannot be crossed over to answer a question for the other. You have not defined any situation that defies this logic. Until you do, I will rest on it. But I do have to acknowledge that some situations require both empiricism and philosophy to arrive at an answer.
The reason I make statements like “I hate philosophy” is because it just seems like any philosophical discussion eventually becomes long winded and bloated with pomposity. And anyway, I rarely encounter questions that require anything more than a cursory foray into philosophy. I’m completely happy to exist within the empirical world, where what we can know is usually testable and objective. I’ve read many books on philosophy and afterward I usually wish I’d just watched a good movie instead; their application seems so often to be remote. Understand that I’m not knocking the value or usefulness of philosophy as a discipline; but I simply get frustrated with the mental gymnastics required to get into a full on debate on it. Mentally, I’m just not up to it. But I feel that I understand it well enough to know when I’m getting the B.S. routine.
Author
