Dismissing the Supernatural

[Furrowed Brow]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true.

• Proposition P:
  there is someone of unsullied reputation and of otherwise good character prepared to die for their belief they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead.

Given just two choices

• (A) is lying
  (B) is true,

Premise 1 means it is more likely they are (A) lying, than what they say is ever going to be (B) true.

I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

[fredonly]

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true.

• Proposition P:
  there is someone of unsullied reputation and of otherwise good character prepared to die for their belief they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead.

Given just two choices

• (A) is lying
  (B) is true,

Premise 1 means it is more likely they are (A) lying, than what they say is ever going to be (B) true.

I firmly believe in Premsie 1. I'd bet my life on it.

Questions: why am I being unreasonable? What is wrong with Premise 1? Is there a better premise I should be using?

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie. However, just because they BELIEVE they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead doesn't make it objectively true. A man of unsullied reputation and otherwise good character can still suffer specific delusions.

Of course, this is purely hypothetical. There's no credible evidence that anyone who claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus was put to death because of this belief. For that matter, the evidence is suspect that anyone really claimed to have seen the resurrected body of Jesus.

Premise 1: any explanation no matter how unlikely is more likely than a supernatural claim being true

This seems too general. An explanation that is based on purely speculative science might be just as unlikely as the supernatural. e.g. an explanation that assumes time travel to the past, or travelling faster than the speed of light, is just as unlikely as a supernatural claim - and perhaps MORE so, depending on your definition of "supernatural."

[Furrowed Brow]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

I think it is unlikely but not beyond the bounds of unwarranted scenarios we could invent that will all be more likely than the claim being objectively true.

However, just because they BELIEVE they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead doesn't make it objectively true. A man of unsullied reputation and otherwise good character can still suffer specific delusions.

Delusions, pressure, stresses, nervous brek down, a suicidal streak, sudden attention seeking, a hidden agenda etc. are all more likely than it being true. It is likely that someone would voluntary admit a serious crime they did not do? Well the answer apparently is yes and it is well recorded. 200 people confessed to the abduction of the Lindbergh baby.

An explanation that is based on purely speculative science might be just as unlikely as the supernatural. e.g. an explanation that assumes time travel to the past, or travelling faster than the speed of light, is just as unlikely as a supernatural claim - and perhaps MORE so, depending on your definition of "supernatural�.

Interesting the point.

• X] the invention of fantastic technologies that breaks the laws of physics as we presently understand them
  Y] the invention of unknown supernatural forces that breaks the laws of physics as we presently understand them.

As for their proximity to reality I’d say x edges it (barely) on the ground there is evidence our knowledge does change and our technology does seem to become more exotic, and there is some chance of falsifying the ideas of science fiction. But if someone said the devil took the Lindbergh baby and some else said it was a time traveller I’d dismiss them both. But if they were the only choice and I was forced to choose then I’d say time traveller. But that is like asling me to choose between something with the probability of 1/10^59 or 1/10^60. I'd really prefer not to accept either idea. If someone said a time travelling dragon took the Lindbergh baby and I had the choice of that or the devil then I could not honestly choose between them even if forced.

[fredonly]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

I think it is unlikely but not beyond the bounds of unwarranted scenarios we could invent that will all be more likely than the claim being objectively true.

However, just because they BELIEVE they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead doesn't make it objectively true. A man of unsullied reputation and otherwise good character can still suffer specific delusions.

Delusions, pressure, stresses, nervous brek down, a suicidal streak, sudden attention seeking, a hidden agenda etc. are all more likely than it being true. It is likely that someone would voluntary admit a serious crime they did not do? Well the answer apparently is yes and it is well recorded. 200 people confessed to the abduction of the Lindbergh baby.

An explanation that is based on purely speculative science might be just as unlikely as the supernatural. e.g. an explanation that assumes time travel to the past, or travelling faster than the speed of light, is just as unlikely as a supernatural claim - and perhaps MORE so, depending on your definition of "supernatural�.

Interesting the point.

• X] the invention of fantastic technologies that breaks the laws of physics as we presently understand them
  Y] the invention of unknown supernatural forces that breaks the laws of physics as we presently understand them.

As for their proximity to reality I’d say x edges it (barely) on the ground there is evidence our knowledge does change and our technology does seem to become more exotic, and there is some chance of falsifying the ideas of science fiction. But if someone said the devil took the Lindbergh baby and some else said it was a time traveller I’d dismiss them both. But if they were the only choice and I was forced to choose then I’d say time traveller. But that is like asling me to choose between something with the probability of 1/10^59 or 1/10^60. I'd really prefer not to accept either idea. If someone said a time travelling dragon took the Lindbergh baby and I had the choice of that or the devil then I could not honestly choose between them even if forced.

In a sense, time travel is supernatural in that it is beyond the laws of physics. On the other hand, why couldn't a so-called supernatural world of spirits and demons actually exist within other dimensions, and be part of nature? It's actually one of my little pet peeves that believers always insist on placing the supernatural completely beyond all imaginable science.

[SteveC]

Sometimes a lie can take on a life of its own. When that happens, people may be quite willing to die for a lie, even when they weren't witnesses to the event.

In the case of the apostles, who knows how much they were involved in the creation of lies and myths. Since the Gospels were written after their deaths, it's impossible to determine what they died for. We do know they believed that Jesus would come back in their lifetimes. They were wrong of course, but they did have something to live and die for.

There's also the possibility that the Apostles died for fame and glory. What did they have to go back to when Jesus died ? NOTHING, of course! Here they were - rock stars, of sorts, and it all came to an end. It's a lifestyle that's hard to give up - groupies, power, fame, travel. These are motivating factors to lie and to die for.

[Jagella]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it. Have psychologists done studies that demonstrate that people, if given an ultimatum of recanting a claim or suffering death, will not recant if they know the claim to be true? Personally, I would probably recant any claim I've made—true or false—if recanting would save my skin.

Another problem with the assertion in question is that it's way too vague. What does it mean to “die for a lie�? Is the claim made known to be false by the person facing death or is it another person's lie? If a person “dies for a lie,� then did they die voluntarily or involuntarily? We don't always have a choice in the matter, of course.

Finally, if an person chooses death over recanting a belief, I question that person's credibility. I tend to be more likely to believe people I think are sensible, and in my opinion sensible people won't die for beliefs. A person martyred for a religious belief, then, is less likely to be dying for the truth than a person who knows better than do die in such an unreasonable way.

Jagella

[notachance]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it. Have psychologists done studies that demonstrate that people, if given an ultimatum of recanting a claim or suffering death, will not recant if they know the claim to be true? Personally, I would probably recant any claim I've made—true or false—if recanting would save my skin.

True. And this is exactly what Peter allegedly did on on the night Jesus was arrested. He denied even knowing him three times before dawn.

This doesn't seem like the action of a man who thought Jesus was the Son of God, and that denying him would result in eternal suffering in hell. It seems like the action of a person who values his life more than his eternal soul. Almost as though he didn't believe an eternal soul existed...

[Jagella]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it. Have psychologists done studies that demonstrate that people, if given an ultimatum of recanting a claim or suffering death, will not recant if they know the claim to be true? Personally, I would probably recant any claim I've made—true or false—if recanting would save my skin.

True. And this is exactly what Peter allegedly did on on the night Jesus was arrested. He denied even knowing him three times before dawn.

This doesn't seem like the action of a man who thought Jesus was the Son of God, and that denying him would result in eternal suffering in hell. It seems like the action of a person who values his life more than his eternal soul. Almost as though he didn't believe an eternal soul existed...

I suppose under my definition of “sensible person,� Peter was sensible! Or at least he was sensible until Jesus presumably rose from the dead. Peter, according to some people's beliefs, was ultimately martyred by crucifixion. Some apologists claim that Peter and the other martyred Christians must have been telling the truth because they were witnesses of the risen Jesus and died for that fact.

But what of Lazarus? According to John 11:43-44, Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. If witnessing a man risen from the grave changes people into heroes willing to die for their beliefs, then why did Peter chicken out when he was asked if he knew Jesus after Jesus had been arrested? At that time Peter should already have been transformed into a brave saint enduring persecution for the cause of The Kingdom of God. After all, witnessing the raising of Lazarus from the dead should have already changed him.

Oh well, I guess it's little details like these that keep the apologists busy.

Jagella

[fredonly]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

Apologists often make this assertion, but I can't recall ever seeing any scientific evidence for it. Have psychologists done studies that demonstrate that people, if given an ultimatum of recanting a claim or suffering death, will not recant if they know the claim to be true? Personally, I would probably recant any claim I've made—true or false—if recanting would save my skin.

I expect you’re right that there’s no scientific evidence, but I still think it is a plausible assumption. There is a lot of evidence of people dying for their beliefs: suicide bombers, 9/11 fanatics, and some Christian “martyrs� as well. I’m not aware of any specific occasions in which we are aware of someone dying for a lie.

Another problem with the assertion in question is that it's way too vague. What does it mean to “die for a lie�? Is the claim made known to be false by the person facing death or is it another person's lie? If a person “dies for a lie,� then did they die voluntarily or involuntarily? We don't always have a choice in the matter, of course.

I completely agree. Most Americans would believe the 9/11 attackers died for a lie: the lie that they would be rewarded in heaven. However, they presumably believed the lie, so I label this “dying for a belief.� It’s an entirely different matter as to whether the object of their belief is true. Another possibility is a hypothetical Nazi soldier, who dies on the battlefield despite the fact that he has nothing against Jews. He didn’t put himself at risk of dying because of the lie; he was conscripted into the army, and chose to follow orders rather than face the consequences of not doing so.

In brief, I think the only way this question is relevant is in the context of a person dying because of a professed belief, and for no other reason – and EITHER the person truly believed it, or he was lying about his belief. I don’t think there are cases of the latter (mental illness doesn’t count, because THAT would then be the cause of death).

Finally, if an person chooses death over recanting a belief, I question that person's credibility. I tend to be more likely to believe people I think are sensible, and in my opinion sensible people won't die for beliefs. A person martyred for a religious belief, then, is less likely to be dying for the truth than a person who knows better than do die in such an unreasonable way.

I disagree. A person makes his choices based on his personal world-view and belief system. If he truly believes it is in his long term interest (post-death) to suffer martyrdom, then that is a rational act. To elaborate, a person holding irrational beliefs is behaving rationally when is behavior is consistent with, and logically follows from, his beliefs (which are the assumptions in his reasoning).

[arian]

I think it highly unlikely someone would truly die for a lie.

I think it is unlikely but not beyond the bounds of unwarranted scenarios we could invent that will all be more likely than the claim being objectively true.

Look how many people are risking their lives for a lie? Billions and billions are doing it, like those selling drugs, robbing banks, committing adultery with his neighbors wife, laying their kids to sleep on deadly vipers, drinking the holy-water while dead bodies are floating by while they become one with the universe.

However, just because they BELIEVE they saw a man walk on water and rise from the dead doesn't make it objectively true. A man of unsullied reputation and otherwise good character can still suffer specific delusions.

Delusions, pressure, stresses, nervous break down, a suicidal streak, sudden attention seeking, a hidden agenda etc. are all more likely than it being true.

OR, .... indoctrination, bribe, threat or even brainwashing.
Just because they say that they have the guy who did the Oklahoma City Bombing does NOT mean they have the real guy. Who feeds this scapegoat three times a day in prison? Do you know how easy it is to put some drugs in his food (done to me many times) where he shows up in court as an emotionless zombie, where the real culprits can tell the jury: "Look at this cold-blooded murderer, he doesn't even show any emotion. This alone should PROVE HE IS GUILTY!" Now pick a jury that already made up their minds that he is guilty, and you have deflected the already brainwashed population from the real terrorists behind Oklahoma City bombing, 9/11, or even the Kennedy assassinations.

Actually, "Delusions, pressure, stresses, nervous break down, a suicidal streak, sudden attention seeking," are minial compared to the powers behind the opposition of miracles in the Bible, or those miracles presently being performed.

70 million people died in the last World War, what caused that? 'Claims of miracles?' Or was it the 'lack of them'?

It is likely that someone would voluntary admit a serious crime they did not do? Well the answer apparently is yes and it is well recorded. 200 people confessed to the abduction of the Lindbergh baby.

What better way to deflect people from seeing the obvious than to pay 200 people to confess to something they did not do? Paying people to lie is a standard practice in third-world-countries. Philippine President Marcos wife Emelda used to have a team pass out money to crowds of people before they arrived at an airport, asking only for them to cheer and pretend to worship them as they walked off from the plane. This was then broadcast on TV for months.

An explanation that is based on purely speculative science might be just as unlikely as the supernatural. e.g. an explanation that assumes time travel to the past, or travelling faster than the speed of light, is just as unlikely as a supernatural claim - and perhaps MORE so, depending on your definition of "supernatural�.

Interesting the point.

• X] the invention of fantastic technologies that breaks the laws of physics as we presently understand them
  Y] the invention of unknown supernatural forces that breaks the laws of physics as we presently understand them.

Or [Z] invention of lying doctrines for 1800 years to delude people of the truth revealed in the Bible, then threaten the people with hell fire if they apostosize from such lies.

Sure, ... whatever it takes.

As for their proximity to reality I’d say x edges it (barely) on the ground there is evidence our knowledge does change and our technology does seem to become more exotic, and there is some chance of falsifying the ideas of science fiction.

Yes, 'some chance', ...

But if someone said the devil took the Lindbergh baby and some else said it was a time traveller I’d dismiss them both. But if they were the only choice and I was forced to choose then I’d say time traveller.

"If they were the only choice"? So if they give the population ONE MAN who might of killed Kennedy, hey, ... I mean that is the only choice, right? "Well, ... dah, ... I guess he must have done it... he is the only choice we were given."

Oh no, not in a debate my friend, we have more then the 'choices' you guys present here.

But that is like asling me to choose between something with the probability of 1/10^59 or 1/10^60. I'd really prefer not to accept either idea. If someone said a time travelling dragon took the Lindbergh baby and I had the choice of that or the devil then I could not honestly choose between them even if forced.

Do you know what the probability of the Big-Bang creating this universe? Even if nothing else existed besides the atoms that make up this universe, for them to arrange themselves in such perfect order where we humans developed the ability to reason, 1/10^10,000,000 power would only be a very generous 'rough' estimate, for it is much greater than that if we consider quarks. It is trillions of times beyond the 'impossibility factor', yet look how many intelligent people believe it?

My advice; choose the 1/10^60, much, much safer than the other things you believe in. Which lie are you willing to die for my friend?