tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post5464744098090123890..comments2024-03-23T07:33:30.972+00:00Comments on Quodlibeta: The Christ Myth MythJameshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01594220073836613367noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-66426514582000336592013-01-11T18:55:48.424+00:002013-01-11T18:55:48.424+00:00The Latin word Quodlibeta means "whatever you...The Latin word Quodlibeta means "whatever you like" and refers to the special occasions at medieval universities when the students (or clerks as they were known) could test their masters by asking any question they fancied. <br /><a href="http://phlebotomytrainingpro.net/illinois/" rel="nofollow">phlebotomy education IL</a>phlebotomisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05064342768057730274noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-79215937008790248512010-05-09T22:47:40.509+01:002010-05-09T22:47:40.509+01:00Here's a quote from Swinburne on his numbers:
...Here's a quote from Swinburne on his numbers:<br /><br /><i>This book of mine was not at all concerned with these issues, but it proceeded to argue that, <b>if we suppose there is a modest probability on the evidence of natural theology that there is a God</b>, then it is very probable that the Resurrection of Jesus took place.</i><br /><br />Emphasis mine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-5427171652256739092010-04-12T09:16:14.735+01:002010-04-12T09:16:14.735+01:00Using Bayes' theorem for the original subject ...Using Bayes' theorem for the original subject of this post, can we agree that it is 90 per cent probable that Jesus existed as an historical person, and ten per cent probable that he did not. I look forward to others who are more adept at using Swinburne's methods to propose alternative probabilities.<br />Or one might take the position that it is absurd to use Bayes' Theorem to assess the probability of an historical event happening or not happening. Historians would certainly not go near it as a method.scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-25166028442070870122010-04-12T08:41:15.430+01:002010-04-12T08:41:15.430+01:00Matko - I am quite happy to leave Swinburne's ...Matko - I am quite happy to leave Swinburne's reputation to the mathematicians. On the basis of the subject matter he deals with I have him in my theology section of my books not my philosophy section where i don't think he would find much welcome.scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-52596194362545135292010-04-11T18:39:53.474+01:002010-04-11T18:39:53.474+01:00Sceptic said,
This is where Swinburne has long si...Sceptic said,<br /><br /><i>This is where Swinburne has long since been rumbled. The tragic thing is that the world of theology is so closed off that most people within in still seem to think that Swinburne is a great logician (...)</i><br /><br />You can write how much want, sceptic, but Swinburne is one of the leading contemporary philosophers of religion who pioneered bayesianism. All professional philosophers are trained in logic and probability calculus including Swinburne, so he didn't fumble his math in any way, and your repeated tagging of Swinburne as a theologian shows how "deep" was your research about him.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-56833892480926229582010-04-11T16:53:31.192+01:002010-04-11T16:53:31.192+01:00A logician is someone who studies logic. They talk...A logician is someone who studies logic. They talk about possible world semantic, paraconsistent logic, fuzzy logic, etc.<br />Swinburne's calculations work. He just uses illustrative starting points. Get that. Illustrative. The intention is not to prove something with 97% certainty, it's to give a model of how to think about evidence in a bayesian method.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-18247456163103376982010-04-11T15:34:26.307+01:002010-04-11T15:34:26.307+01:00Matthew. You can't ague that something is 97 p...Matthew. You can't ague that something is 97 per cent probable when you start with data that are 'wild guesses'. This is where Swinburne has long since been rumbled. The tragic thing is that the world of theology is so closed off that most people within in still seem to think that Swinburne is a great logician, although the first critique i read of Swinburne actually came from a Christian who was embarrassed by his use of logic.<br />But there's none so blind as them that can't see.Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-21314094957807846372010-04-11T15:10:08.235+01:002010-04-11T15:10:08.235+01:00The same William Lane Craig who is a fellow at the...<i>The same William Lane Craig who is a fellow at the Discovery Institute. The same William Lane Craig who denies common ancestry of humans and animals.</i><br /><br />Here I'm calling bullshit. He doesn't deny that.<br /><br />ALso, what he thinks about biology is irrelevant to his expertise in NT studies. Richard Dawkins mentiones a professor of german who argues Jesus never existed in "The God Delusion".<br />What if a creationist would say "You think Dawkins has proven evolution? The same Dawkins who cites a professor of german talking bullshit?"Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-22679541056885993192010-04-11T15:07:15.965+01:002010-04-11T15:07:15.965+01:00We cannot be so respectful. We shouldn't have ...<i>We cannot be so respectful. We shouldn't have to say it, but Swinburne's work is pseudomathematical nonsense. His arithmetic of probabilities is fine, but the base probabilities that he worked with were nothing beyond wild guesses.</i><br /><br />I'm sorry, but, are you guys for real? Of course they are wild mass guesses! They are illustrative, that's the whole point of the book!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-28672876123676769262010-04-10T00:19:11.871+01:002010-04-10T00:19:11.871+01:00It takes a certain expertise to know the facts as ...It takes a certain expertise to know the facts as perceived through revelation of isms and such forth, with no grounding in the sacred.<br /><br /> That is seperating sacred from dogma and indoctrines obviously, yet staying within expererience.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-64732948004974699762010-04-09T21:43:21.705+01:002010-04-09T21:43:21.705+01:00And Jim, yours is basically an argument from autho...<i>And Jim, yours is basically an argument from authority</i><br /><br />Argument from authority is a perfectly valid form of argumentation outside of formal logic (which history and science are). Click on the link "the fallacy of irrelevant authority" for my blog post on that.<br /><br /><i>And Richard Carrier has a PhD in Classics from Columbia and has published as well. I still reject him as any kind of authority for the same reason I reject Craig - they are both preachers and doctrinaire polemicists who simply make a pretence of objectivity while spouting their respective orthodoxies.</i><br /><br />I have two responses, one theoretical and one practical. The theoretical response is that this is an <i>ad hominem</i> argument. You don't discard someone's views because they have an agenda (which is true of everyone), you discard their views because they're demonstrably false.<br /><br />The practical response is ... I tend to agree with Tim. We all have to make decisions on what to read and what not to read, on who to pay attention to and who not to, and I would probably put the writings of someone with an obvious agenda in the "later, if ever" pile. We only have a limited amount of time, and poring over the writings of someone who annoys me is not on my list of priorities.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-51892964970083713182010-04-09T20:04:04.164+01:002010-04-09T20:04:04.164+01:00Skepticism about Jesus' historicity is unwarra...Skepticism about Jesus' historicity is unwarranted. For an obscure jewish preacher and faith healer that has lived in a society where 90% of people were illiterate and far from Rome's historians in a far off province, we have plenty of historical attestation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-10310276946605397532010-04-09T19:21:59.626+01:002010-04-09T19:21:59.626+01:00Well, if we're going to start talking about &#...Well, if we're going to start talking about 'betting' on Heaven surely Pascal's wager would apply...<br /><br />It isn't so surprising that we have so little verification for Jesus outside of the Gospels considering how much History is lost to us.<br /><br />To use a modern example to illutrate my point, I'm a big fan of Blues music but for many of the early artists we actually have very little personal information to go on. For Robert Johnson, one of the revered greats, who died in 1938 (?), we don't actually know when he was born, we don't know exactly when he died ('38 is our best guess) and we have three possible burial sites. Even for artists such as the Duchess (Bo Diddley's bassist) and John Lee Hooker who lived until the '90's, we don't know much about their birth and early life. And this is in the 20th Century!<br /><br />If this is true for 'modern' History then how much more difficult will it be for someone who lived 2000 years ago?Jessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-89814931500652229362010-04-09T04:39:07.043+01:002010-04-09T04:39:07.043+01:00Several of you are completely missing my point. Yo...Several of you are completely missing my point. You do actually have to admit that very little evidence for Jesus' life, ministry, crucifixion and resurrection exists and it is all in the NT. I have no problem with Jesus being an actual person and he most likely was. The problem is that Craig is willing to parse sentences in an ancient text written by true believers and claim there is overwhelming evidence for the resurrection, yet he denies the mountains of evidence from a multitude of sources for evolution. He argues strongly against evolution and is a fellow at the biggest anti-evolution PR firm in the US.<br /><br />And Jim, yours is basically an argument from authority - and I must correct myself ; he has a ThD and not a PhD in Theology. I realize that theology works differently than science, but if Craig's dissertation documents all the evidence that exists for the resurrection, then I would not be betting on a heavenly reward.Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-16647199087405636242010-04-09T02:16:26.220+01:002010-04-09T02:16:26.220+01:00This certainly qualifies Craig as a New Testament ...<i>This certainly qualifies Craig as a New Testament historian, and a top notch one at that, especially given that he's published extensively on this in refereed journals. </i><br /><br />And Richard Carrier has a PhD in Classics from Columbia and has published as well. I still reject him as any kind of authority for the same reason I reject Craig - they are both preachers and doctrinaire polemicists who simply make a pretence of objectivity while spouting their respective orthodoxies.Tim O'Neillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00292944444808847980noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-57232791476692525902010-04-08T23:20:31.123+01:002010-04-08T23:20:31.123+01:00To clear up a few points: First, the quote by N. T...To clear up a few points: First, the quote by N. T. Wright is regarding Jesus' empty tomb and post-mortem appearances, not his physical resurrection -- I think. It's been a while and I don't have the book handy.<br /><br />Second, Craig is a Philosopher and a New Testament historian. Historical Jesus scholarship, New Testament historiography, or whatever you want to call it is a subcategory of theology in the university system. That doesn't mean that having done your Theology work on Ecclesiology makes you an expert on the historical Jesus, but they're not neatly compartmentalized, they tend to bleed into each other. In the same way, an epistemologist can write a book on ethics without going outside his area of expertise (Philosophy).<br /><br />At any rate this is all academic (ha!) because Craig's second dissertation was on the historical Jesus, and he wrote it under Wolfhart Pannenberg, probably the most important historical Jesus scholar of the second half of the 20th century. This certainly qualifies Craig as a New Testament historian, and a top notch one at that, especially given that he's published extensively on this in refereed journals. His dissertation was published in two parts by Edwin Mellen Press; Craig backs up his claim that the post-mortem appearances are almost universally accepted among scholars with multiple references there, although it was written 25 years ago. It's at least been the consensus view since the 1950s when Hans Grass argued that there must have been post-mortem appearances and they must have been objective visionary events. The quote in the post comes from his debate with Crossan where Craig accuses him of not accepting that there were appearances. Crossan takes umbrage at this and insists he would never assert anything so absurd as that the early Christians didn't experience appearances of Jesus.Jim S.https://www.blogger.com/profile/15538540873375357030noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-40972636173290845022010-04-08T22:55:08.909+01:002010-04-08T22:55:08.909+01:00I did say 'related' fields, I have no know...I did say 'related' fields, I have no knowledge of Dr Craig's education, I was just making the point that most education today is fairly holistic so that to be more than competent in one field will also involve being more than competent in others where it impacts upon your field of expertise. I am presuming as a Biologist you have more than a passing knowledge of Physics or Chemistry as well. Anyway we're talking about History not Biology which is a related discipline.<br /><br />On the second point I haven't read Biola's doctrinal statement so I can't comment. But as for evidence, oh I don't know a body perhaps? Or a birth certificate, I'm not fussy.Jessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-19153917127420151392010-04-08T22:41:06.250+01:002010-04-08T22:41:06.250+01:00So a theology PhD makes one a polymath? Who knew.
...So a theology PhD makes one a polymath? Who knew.<br />I should get one since I already have one in biology and, given Craig's example, a theology degree confers no knowledge of biology. If a theology degree gets me everything else, then I'm set.<br /><br />Let me ask both of you what evidence would convince you Jesus wasn't crucified and resurrected? Is there any? Do you agree with the doctrinal statement of Biola U where Craig is a professor? Do you think signing that doctrinal statement would make it almost impossible for someone to accept any evidence that contradicted it?Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-42820866664134043202010-04-08T20:27:14.772+01:002010-04-08T20:27:14.772+01:00In reply to your second point, it's not that p...In reply to your second point, it's not that people have already made up their mind (although some people have and do) but it is also not true that people approach the evidence dispassionately and then make up their minds. Everyone has a worldview by which we interpret and filter our experiences and what we observe. This worldview is based on presuppositions and beliefs before any attempt to evaluate the evidence is made. The value of a worldview is in its ability to account for and explain the evidence better than other worldviews. The problem comes from those who are not aware or even choose not to acknowledge they have one but instead hold to a belief in neutral rationality. Yes, a lot of people never change their worldviews but quite a few do, Christians might call this a conversion. (Sorry to butt in Matko!)Jessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-80385584060629735212010-04-08T19:59:29.674+01:002010-04-08T19:59:29.674+01:00To answer your first point. Studying theology at ...To answer your first point. Studying theology at any level involves learning about other disciplines that affect or have relevance for your sepcialism. Whilst at university I learnt about philosophy, historicism, social sociology, lingusitic theory, etc. Just because your specialism is in one area doesn't mean that you can't be competent or even very good in another related field.Jessnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-26574966477681210232010-04-08T16:41:52.793+01:002010-04-08T16:41:52.793+01:00How does a PhD in theology make one a historian?
...How does a PhD in theology make one a historian? <br />Also how does it work with theology PhDs - when you can be an assistant professor of philosphy in Illinois while earning another PhD in theology in Germany at the same time? <br /><br />Let me get this straight, you are claiming that everyone has version of what they think is the truth in their head and then go out and seek corroborating evidence? Evidence never changes anyone's mind about what they think the truth is?Michael Fugatenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-9156583253927073762010-04-08T10:07:32.217+01:002010-04-08T10:07:32.217+01:00Matko ;My work on Swinburne was done some years ag...Matko ;My work on Swinburne was done some years ago when I made a serious study of his 'logic' and found it wanting. It was while I was doing this that I came across the response of mathematicians to his work. There was a particularly good detailed rebuttal that showed how (by quoting the relevant passages) he fudged the figures when he needed to. <br /> I think you need to find a mathematician who is prepared to stand up and endorse Swinburne's use of Bayes' Theorem. <br /> It doesn't help your case to treat those of us who have been studying these issues for some years as 'patronising liars' This is exactly why Christian apologists ( and some of their opponents) have such a bad reputation among disinterested scholars. We are not all rabid atheists, many of us have a longstanding interest in the way that these issues are discussed and the evidence presented by both sides that we are intelligent and academically experienced enough to evaluate without needing to get belligerent.Scepticnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-74721262798505271452010-04-08T09:07:32.211+01:002010-04-08T09:07:32.211+01:00Sceptic said,
I wasn't kidding
But you'r...Sceptic said,<br /><br /><i>I wasn't kidding</i><br /><br />But you're still funny!<br /><br /><i>Jason Rosenhouse's latest blog on evolutionblog</i><br /><br />I've read the essay by Polster and Ross, and their response consist in dismissing Swinburne in a couple of soundbytes, while squeezing him between creationists and Dembski and all expressed in the typical form of pretentious sneering à la Dawkins.<br /><br />Any that other paper doesn't fare any better. You scurried to Google to fish it, and it was written by some obscure brazilian philosopher, who didn't bother to write in which peer-reviews journal the article appeared. And those books he cites you haven't even read yourself, making you a patronizing liar, who tells other people what they should read and plays off an expert. <br /><br /><i>I suppose I need to get back to the dreary task of sychophantic slithering about!</i><br /><br />This is the most intelligent thing you wrote up to this point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-55850748304929722652010-04-08T08:37:54.467+01:002010-04-08T08:37:54.467+01:00Jamie:
"I regard this conclusion [ i.e. the ...Jamie:<br /><br />"I regard this conclusion [ i.e. the physical resurrection of Jesus] as coming in the same sort of category of historical probability so high as to be historically certain, as the death of Augustus in AD 14 or the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70".<br /><br />This is Wright as quoted in the opening statement by Jim S. on which these comments are based. I too was amazed to read the statement that scholars agree on the physical resurrection when I have read many who do not or leave it open. I need only to mention E.P.Sanders or Geza Vermes to make the point and I note that another commentator here would add Alan Segal to the list - if these are not NT scholars I don't know who would qualify.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5074683.post-52001915086200031872010-04-08T08:31:18.911+01:002010-04-08T08:31:18.911+01:00Michael Fugaate said,
Craig is a philosopher not ...Michael Fugaate said,<br /><br /><i>Craig is a philosopher not a NT historian.</i><br /><br />He received his second PhD under Pannenberg in Germany. He is a NT historian (like Tom Wright).<br /><br /><i>This a man who fits the facts to his preconceived beliefs.</i> <br /><br />Like any human that ever walked the planet.<br /><br />Tim O'Neill said,<br /><br /><i>To pretend that the idea that a post-crucifixion Jesus actually appeared to anyone is "almost universally acknowledged" by relevant scholars is pure nonsense.</i><br /><br />I think what he has meant by that is the Jesus' followers had visionary experience of him. What caused them and what their nature is (dreams, hallucinations, actual appearance) is a debate for itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com