Is the resurrection of Jesus supported...

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Goose

Is the resurrection of Jesus supported...

Post #1

Post by Goose »

Chaosborders and I have agreed to a head-to-head. Chaosborders has suggested the question for debate as well as the thread title and I have agreed. The question for debate will be:

"Can the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes?"

I will affirm the positive and Chaosborders will affirm the negative.

We have agreed to a maximum of ten rounds (twenty total posts).

I will post first.

Comments welcomed here.

Goose

Post #2

Post by Goose »

First I would like to thank Chaosborders for participating in this head-to-head and proposing such an interesting question for debate:

Can the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes?

I will confess that I don't see how it would ultimately make any real difference if the resurrection were taught in secular history classes as this would not make the resurrection of Jesus any more true if it were. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not. Where the resurrection is taught as factual is irrelevant to whether or not the resurrection is factual. Also, I realize Chaosborders has framed the question in such a way so that I can not Beg the Question by asserting, "Well it's taught in history classes at such and such private religious institution, so obviously it is history." But ironically, this approach by Chaosborders itself Begs the Question that a particular history class at a religious institution would not, or is unlikely to, employ a proper objective historical methodology similar to one that might be used in a history class at a secular institution. But, despite the somewhat fallacious framing of the question it is an interesting proposition nonetheless. In addition, I'll note that the way Chaosborders has framed the question it does not appear to be a question of the resurrection being sufficiently substantiated so that we can say it is proven a literally factual event. Instead the question seems to revolve more around is the resurrection sufficiently substantiated for it to be taught in secular history classes that it is a literally factual event. There may well be some overlap in these two propositions above and one may imply the other. But we must remember these are fundamentally two different propositions and it appears Chaosborders wishes to argue the latter.

I can think of two ways to argue the question for debate. One way would be to find an historical methodology used by secular historians and then run the evidence for the resurrection through that method. If it passes then we could affirm that, yes, the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes.

Because of the way the question is framed I will argue another way. And that is to find an event from around the period of Jesus that is already accepted as sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence. The presumption is that it is sufficiently substantiated, as far as secular history classes are concerned, because it is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event. Then compare the evidence for the resurrection to this event. If the evidence for the resurrection is at least as good then we can say it has met a similar evidentiary burden as an event already accepted and taught as factual. In this case there would be no evidentiary/historical reason to reject the resurrection from being taught as a factual event in secular history classes. Finally, if one were to reject the resurrection from being taught because of lack of evidentiary support, even though the evidentiary support is as good as another already accepted event, then one must also reject the other already accepted historical event as well. If one does not, in this case, then one is commiting a fallacy by applying the criteria unfairly.


Argument A:

1. If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good** as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event, then the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.
2. The historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event.
3. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well (via modus ponens).


*By resurrection I mean returning to life after being dead. I am not making any claims as to the causal agent of Jesus' return to life after being dead.
**By good I mean in terms of a criteria such as, but not limited to,:
  • 1. How early is the evidence after the event in question?
    2. Is it written by eyewitnesses?
    3. Is there multiple attestation to the event?
    4. Is there enemy attestation?


Note: The phrasing of the question by Chaosborders makes it difficult to use the Bible as he has specifically narrowed it down to secular history classes. There is religious baggage associated with the Bible and thus it would be difficult to allow it into a secular history class. Especially amongst those that a priori do not accept the Bible as containing history. Also, it makes it more challenging for me to not refer to the Bible. And I like a challenge. For these reasons above I will not refer to the Bible as a source in my argument.

Rather than proceeding further at this point I will ask if Chaosborders agrees argument (A) is valid. If not why not? There's no point proceeding to debating the soundness of argument (A) until we can agree whether or not the argument as it stands is valid.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #3

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote: I will confess that I don't see how it would ultimately make any real difference if the resurrection were taught in secular history classes as this would not make the resurrection of Jesus any more true if it were. Either Jesus rose from the dead or he did not. Where the resurrection is taught as factual is irrelevant to whether or not the resurrection is factual. Also, I realize Chaosborders has framed the question in such a way so that I can not Beg the Question by asserting, "Well it's taught in history classes at such and such private religious institution, so obviously it is history." But ironically, this approach by Chaosborders itself Begs the Question that a particular history class at a religious institution would not, or is unlikely to, employ a proper objective historical methodology similar to one that might be used in a history class at a secular institution.
I would like to think that most history classes at religious institutions do use proper objective historical methodology. However, I have heard of ones not doing so, and just wanted to rule out any attempt to use any of those ones as a run around. Also, given it is not my intention to prove that religious institutions aren’t using historical methodology, there was no begging the question fallacy committed regardless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Goose wrote: But, despite the somewhat fallacious framing of the question it is an interesting proposition nonetheless.
Hardly fallacious. Simply as careful a wording as possible to keep the debate focused. If you really believed otherwise, you should not have accepted that as the question.
Goose wrote: In addition, I'll note that the way Chaosborders has framed the question it does not appear to be a question of the resurrection being sufficiently substantiated so that we can say it is proven a literally factual event. Instead the question seems to revolve more around is the resurrection sufficiently substantiated for it to be taught in secular history classes that it is a literally factual event.

There may well be some overlap in these two propositions above and one may imply the other. But we must remember these are fundamentally two different propositions and it appears Chaosborders wishes to argue the latter.
You’re right. I have no interest in arguing whether the resurrection happened or not, only whether it is sufficiently supported by evidence using the historical method to be considered ‘history’. As just about every history teacher I’ve had has pointed out, history isn’t about what actually happened, it’s about what the evidence says is most probably what happened.

If it cannot be sufficiently supported using the historical method to be taught in history classes, then it should not be considered ‘historically’ factual, regardless of whether it objectively happened.
Goose wrote:
I can think of two ways to argue the question for debate. One way would be to find an historical methodology used by secular historians and then run the evidence for the resurrection through that method. If it passes then we could affirm that, yes, the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes.

Because of the way the question is framed I will argue another way. And that is to find an event from around the period of Jesus that is already accepted as sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence. The presumption is that it is sufficiently substantiated, as far as secular history classes are concerned, because it is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event. Then compare the evidence for the resurrection to this event. If the evidence for the resurrection is at least as good then we can say it has met a similar evidentiary burden as an event already accepted and taught as factual. In this case there would be no evidentiary/historical reason to reject the resurrection from being taught as a factual event in secular history classes. Finally, if one were to reject the resurrection from being taught because of lack of evidentiary support, even though the evidentiary support is as good as another already accepted event, then one must also reject the other already accepted historical event as well. If one does not, in this case, then one is commiting a fallacy by applying the criteria unfairly.
Goose wrote: Argument A:

1. If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good** as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event, then the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.
2. The historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event.
3. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well (via modus ponens).


*By resurrection I mean returning to life after being dead. I am not making any claims as to the causal agent of Jesus' return to life after being dead.
**By good I mean in terms of a criteria such as, but not limited to,:
1. How early is the evidence after the event in question?
2. Is it written by eyewitnesses?
3. Is there multiple attestation to the event?
4. Is there enemy attestation?
Goose wrote: Rather than proceeding further at this point I will ask if Chaosborders agrees argument (A) is valid. If not why not? There's no point proceeding to debating the soundness of argument (A) until we can agree whether or not the argument as it stands is valid.
No, it’s missing a clause. History isn’t just about evidence in favor, it is also about evidence against. If there is more reason to doubt an event, then it consequently requires more evidence before it can be considered historically probable. Simply finding a secular event that has as little evidence in favor does no good if there is also not as much reason to question said evidence or event.

I will wait until you’ve actually presented your first round of evidence before making counter-arguments, largely in the interest of time (I have to study for a test and two quizzes today and tomorrow).
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #4

Post by Goose »

Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:I realize Chaosborders has framed the question in such a way so that I can not Beg the Question by asserting, "Well it's taught in history classes at such and such private religious institution, so obviously it is history." But ironically, this approach by Chaosborders itself Begs the Question that a particular history class at a religious institution would not, or is unlikely to, employ a proper objective historical methodology similar to one that might be used in a history class at a secular institution.
I would like to think that most history classes at religious institutions do use proper objective historical methodology. However, I have heard of ones not doing so, and just wanted to rule out any attempt to use any of those ones as a run around. Also, given it is not my intention to prove that religious institutions aren’t using historical methodology, there was no begging the question fallacy committed regardless. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
The underlying assumption is that such and such private religious institution that teaches the resurrection as factual does not use historical methodology. Yet the institution not teaching the resurrection as factual may not be employing a historical methodology either. I could say that I've "heard" of secular institutions that do not use proper objective historical methodology too. So it cuts both ways. One arguing the negative case could come along and say, "Well [the resurrection is not] taught in history classes at such and such [strike]private religious[/strike] institution, so obviously it is [not] history." So your wording of the question for debate allows you to use the same question begging fallacy you are attempting to help the positive case avoid. Thus it is fallacious. However, just because the question is fallacious doesn't mean it is void of value. It is an interesting proposition which is why I accepted. I don't want to turn this into a grand diversion.


Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote: Argument A:

1. If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good** as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event, then the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.
2. The historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event.
3. Therefore, the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well (via modus ponens).


*By resurrection I mean returning to life after being dead. I am not making any claims as to the causal agent of Jesus' return to life after being dead.
**By good I mean in terms of a criteria such as, but not limited to,:
1. How early is the evidence after the event in question?
2. Is it written by eyewitnesses?
3. Is there multiple attestation to the event?
4. Is there enemy attestation?

Rather than proceeding further at this point I will ask if Chaosborders agrees argument (A) is valid. If not why not? There's no point proceeding to debating the soundness of argument (A) until we can agree whether or not the argument as it stands is valid.
No, it’s missing a clause. History isn’t just about evidence in favor, it is also about evidence against. If there is more reason to doubt an event, then it consequently requires more evidence before it can be considered historically probable. Simply finding a secular event that has as little evidence in favor does no good if there is also not as much reason to question said evidence or event.
Nothing you've stated here makes argument (A) invalid. Argument (A) takes a valid form of modus ponens. The conclusion logically follows from the premises. In other words Q logically follows from P or P implies Q in argument (A) where:
  • P=the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good** as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event and;
    Q=the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.


To dispute argument (A)'s validity you must either dispute its form or the logical connection between the premises and conclusion. You have not done either.
Chaosborders wrote:I will wait until you’ve actually presented your first round of evidence before making counter-arguments, largely in the interest of time (I have to study for a test and two quizzes today and tomorrow).
Well this will be a sticking point then. There's no point going through the evidence that supports the premises until you see that argument (A) is valid.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #5

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote:The underlying assumption is that such and such private religious institution that teaches the resurrection as factual does not use historical methodology. Yet the institution not teaching the resurrection as factual may not be employing a historical methodology either. I could say that I've "heard" of secular institutions that do not use proper objective historical methodology too. So it cuts both ways. One arguing the negative case could come along and say, "Well [the resurrection is not] taught in history classes at such and such [strike]private religious[/strike] institution, so obviously it is [not] history." So your wording of the question for debate allows you to use the same question begging fallacy you are attempting to help the positive case avoid. Thus it is fallacious. However, just because the question is fallacious doesn't mean it is void of value. It is an interesting proposition which is why I accepted. I don't want to turn this into a grand diversion.
The underlying assumption is that private religious institutions have a stronger reason for ignoring historical methodology in this case than say, general public education. I am not disputing that there are probably secular institutions that do not use proper historical methodology.

If anything, I suppose the question was not specific enough in trying to prevent a "It's taught in a history class so it must be history" type argument. But my phrasing that is "SHOULD be taught" was an attempt to mitigate a plea that specific secular institutions do not use the historical method in favor of secular education as whole (such as our country's public education system). Unless you think the majority of secular education has reason to disregard the historical method, I see no fallacy in the question.

And stating it in the debate, rather than taking issue with it before accepting, seems like an attempt to imply right off the bat that my credibility should be doubted. So if you did not want it to become a grand diversion, there was no reason to bring it up.

Chaosborders wrote:Nothing you've stated here makes argument (A) invalid. Argument (A) takes a valid form of modus ponens. The conclusion logically follows from the premises. In other words Q logically follows from P or P implies Q in argument (A) where:
  • P=the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good** as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event and;
    Q=the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.


To dispute argument (A)'s validity you must either dispute its form or the logical connection between the premises and conclusion. You have not done either.
I am disputing that a comparison of "good" evidence, implied throughout your post as only evidence in favor, is sufficient to conclude substantiation without also considering evidence that would cause the event to be doubted.

I will consider your argument sufficient if you restate the premise: "If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus, using historical methodology, is at least as credible as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event and, using historical methodology, both events have roughly equal reasons to doubt the occurrence of said events, then the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well."
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #6

Post by Goose »

Goose wrote:Nothing you've stated here makes argument (A) invalid. Argument (A) takes a valid form of modus ponens. The conclusion logically follows from the premises. In other words Q logically follows from P or P implies Q in argument (A) where:

P=the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus is at least as good** as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event and;
Q=the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well.


To dispute argument (A)'s validity you must either dispute its form or the logical connection between the premises and conclusion. You have not done either.
Chaosborders wrote:I am disputing that a comparison of "good" evidence, implied throughout your post as only evidence in favor, is sufficient to conclude substantiation without also considering evidence that would cause the event to be doubted.
We'll consider ALL the evidence on both sides when the time comes. You'll have your opportunity to provide your evidence once we get past this bump in the road regarding validity. Additionally, I don't have a problem interchanging "good" with "credible" if you wish as this seems largely an issue of semantics to me.
Chaosborders wrote:I will consider your argument sufficient if you restate the premise: "If the historical evidence supporting the resurrection* of Jesus, using historical methodology, is at least as credible as the historical evidence for another historical event that is taught in secular history classes as a literally factual event and, using historical methodology, both events have roughly equal reasons to doubt the occurrence of said events, then the resurrection of Jesus should be considered sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence and be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes as well."
At this point it is not a question of whether argument (A) is sufficent. The issue is validity. Argument (A) as I've stated it is valid. We can not progress any further until you acknowledge this. I'll add that your attempt to rewrite my argument (A) is interjecting an entirely new dynamic into the debate that is not stated nor implied in the question for debate. That dynamic is a priori doubt of the event. One's a priori reasons for doubting the event are irrelevant.

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #7

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote:At this point it is not a question of whether argument (A) is sufficent. The issue is validity. Argument (A) as I've stated it is valid. We can not progress any further until you acknowledge this. I'll add that your attempt to rewrite my argument (A) is interjecting an entirely new dynamic into the debate that is not stated nor implied in the question for debate. That dynamic is a priori doubt of the event. One's a priori reasons for doubting the event are irrelevant.
Validity does not equate to soundness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

The question is "Can the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes?"

The use of historical evidence and "should be taught...in history classes" both imply usage of the historical method. Historical methodology requires consideration of doubt regarding historical events per McCullagh's "Argument to the best explanation". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... xplanation

The argument, as you have it written, could be stated to lead to the conclusion using only evidence in favor without any consideration for whether one event requires a greater burden of proof than another.

As such, your argument as written greatly lowers your burden of proof from what is actually required by the historical method. Secondly, it makes any evidence against the event completely irrelevant. Further, I believe that your argument as stated would end up requiring such a low burden of proof that it could be used to argue just about any myth as being sufficiently evidenced to be considered true enough to teach as literally factual in history classes. This leads to the conclusion the argument as stated contains an Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Whether it is valid or not is irrelevant. It is unsound. As such, if you wish to present evidence using it, I have little doubt that you would prove your conclusion from your premises. But it would be a worthless proof. My re-wording forces the argument to stay in line with the historical method and does not automatically result in a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If you can prove it with said rewording, then you will have proved your side of the case.

If you insist on using your argument as stated, that is fine, but I do not think it will be hard to show it as Reductio ad absurdum. As such, I would advise using a modified version that avoids the issue, or coming up with a different argument.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #8

Post by Goose »

Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:At this point it is not a question of whether argument (A) is sufficent. The issue is validity. Argument (A) as I've stated it is valid. We can not progress any further until you acknowledge this. I'll add that your attempt to rewrite my argument (A) is interjecting an entirely new dynamic into the debate that is not stated nor implied in the question for debate. That dynamic is a priori doubt of the event. One's a priori reasons for doubting the event are irrelevant.
Validity does not equate to soundness: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity
Yes I know. Which is why I am trying to get us past the validity stage so we can get to the soundness stage.
Chaosborders wrote:The question is "Can the resurrection of the man commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ be sufficiently substantiated using historical evidence that it should be taught as a literally factual event in secular history classes?"

The use of historical evidence and "should be taught...in history classes" both imply usage of the historical method. Historical methodology requires consideration of doubt regarding historical events per McCullagh's "Argument to the best explanation". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical ... xplanation
"Doubt" is entirely subjective. Hardly an objective historical criterion.
Chaosborders wrote:The argument, as you have it written, could be stated to lead to the conclusion using only evidence in favor without any consideration for whether one event requires a greater burden of proof than another.
Why would you need a greater burden of proof for one event over another unless you a priori decide one event is not possible?
Chaosborders wrote:As such, your argument as written greatly lowers your burden of proof from what is actually required by the historical method.
No it doesn't. My underlying assumption is that what is already taught in secular history classes as factual has passed an historical method and met a reasonable burden of proof. If the resurrection measures up to that event it should be taught as historical as well.
Chaosborders wrote:Secondly, it makes any evidence against the event completely irrelevant.
No it does not.
Chaosborders wrote:Further, I believe that your argument as stated would end up requiring such a low burden of proof that it could be used to argue just about any myth as being sufficiently evidenced to be considered true enough to teach as literally factual in history classes This leads to the conclusion the argument as stated contains an Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
You Beg the Question. What myths? Reductio ad absurdum isn't a fallacy it is in general a reasonable form of argument.
Chaosborders wrote:Whether it is valid or not is irrelevant.
Absolutely false. If an argument is invalid we can not be sure of the truth of the conclusion. So validity is very relevant.
Chaosborders wrote:It is unsound.
We haven't got to this stage yet.
Chaosborders wrote:As such, if you wish to present evidence using it, I have little doubt that you would prove your conclusion from your premises. But it would be a worthless proof.
It's not worthless. It will affirm the positive case of the question for debate.
Chaosborders wrote:My re-wording forces the argument to stay in line with the historical method and does not automatically result in a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If you can prove it with said rewording, then you will have proved your side of the case.
Your rewording interjects a dynamic that is not stated in the question for debate. You should have thought of this earlier.
Chaosborders wrote:If you insist on using your argument as stated, that is fine, but I do not think it will be hard to show it as Reductio ad absurdum. As such, I would advise using a modified version that avoids the issue, or coming up with a odifferent argument.
I insist. So one last time. Do you acknowledge it is valid?

I think we are going to need more than 10 posts each. What do you think? :blink:

User avatar
ChaosBorders
Site Supporter
Posts: 1966
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:16 am
Location: Austin

Post #9

Post by ChaosBorders »

Goose wrote:"Doubt" is entirely subjective. Hardly an objective historical criterion.
Let's look at some parts of the Historical method indicating doubt is an important part of the process.
Historical method per wiki:
Core Principles
#A given source may be forged or corrupted; strong indications of the originality of the source increases its reliability.
# The tendency of a source is its motivation for providing some kind of bias. Tendencies should be minimized or supplemented with opposite motivations.
# If it can be demonstrated that the witness (or source) has no direct interest in creating bias, the credibility of the message is increased.

Procedure
When two sources disagree (and there is no other means of evaluation), then historians take the source which seems to accord best with common sense.

Eyewitnesses
# How did the author report?, and what was his ability to do so?

1. Regarding his ability to report, was he biased? Did he have proper time for reporting? Proper place for reporting? Adequate recording instruments?
2. When did he report in relation to his observation? Soon? Much later? Fifty years is much later as most eyewitnesses are dead and those who remain may have forgotten relevant material.
3. What was the author's intention in reporting? For whom did he report? Would that audience be likely to require or suggest distortion to the author?
4. Are there additional clues to intended veracity? Was he indifferent on the subject reported, thus probably not intending distortion? Did he make statements damaging to himself, thus probably not seeking to distort? Did he give incidental or casual information, almost certainly not intended to mislead?

# Do his statements seem inherently improbable: e.g., contrary to human nature, or in conflict with what we know?

#Are there inner contradictions in the document?

Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augusutus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'"

Argument to the Best Explanation
(Basically the entire section)
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:The argument, as you have it written, could be stated to lead to the conclusion using only evidence in favor without any consideration for whether one event requires a greater burden of proof than another.
Why would you need a greater burden of proof for one event over another unless you a priori decide one event is not possible?
Historical methodology is all about whether an event is probable. If one event has factors that make it less probable, then it requires a greater amount of evidence in its favor. The way your argument is phrased, an equal amount of evidence in favor is all that is required to arrive at the conclusion. All you technically have to do is show that [mundane historical event x] has a single mention and is accepted as historically true, so obviously the resurrection, with such and such evidence in favor, has enough to be accepted as historically factual. I do not know if something along those lines was/is your intention, but I am not inclined to accept an argument that allows such reasoning, as it neglects significant parts of historical methodology.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:This leads to the conclusion the argument as stated contains an Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Not sure how you figure I'll be arguing by Reductio ad absurdum when I'm not trying to disprove a proposition. By the way, Reductio ad absurdum is in general not a fallacious form of argument.
I’m not saying you will be arguing BY Reductio ad absurdum, I’m saying that your argument can be dispelled by it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum. I think your argument as phrased can usher in almost anything as historically factual, including contradictory things, thus per reductio ad absurdum is a faulty argument.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:Whether it is valid or not is irrelevant.
Absolutely false. If an argument is invalid we can not be sure of the truth of the conclusion. So validity is very relevant.
Chaosborders wrote:It is unsound.
We haven't got to this stage yet.
If your premise is faulty, validity is irrelevant because the argument isn’t sound. I am asserting that your premise is faulty, so apparently we are at that stage.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:My re-wording forces the argument to stay in line with the historical method and does not automatically result in a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If you can prove it with said rewording, then you will have proved your side of the case.
Your rewording interjects a dynamic that is not stated in the question for debate. You should have thought of this earlier.
My rewording makes the argument conform to historical methodology, such that the resurrection is being judged as an event by ALL the same criteria as any other event, not just criteria in favor of an event. If you would like to reword the argument yourself to the same effect be my guest.
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:If you insist on using your argument as stated, that is fine, but I do not think it will be hard to show it as Reductio ad absurdum. As such, I would advise using a modified version that avoids the issue, or coming up with a odifferent argument.
I insist. So one last time. Do you acknowledge it is valid?
Part of my problem with deciding whether or not the argument JUST has a problem with soundness is that “good� is so loosely defined. But for the sake of moving on I will consider it as valid. However, as phrased by yourself, I still assert it is unsound, so caring about validity prior to establishing the soundness of its premise seems rather pointless.
Goose wrote: I think we are going to need more than 10 posts each. What do you think? :blink:
I was assuming it was ten rounds, to be started once we actually start posting evidence. So yes, definitely more than just 10 posts each.
Unless indicated otherwise what I say is opinion. (Kudos to Zzyzx for this signature).

“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.� -Albert Einstein

The most dangerous ideas in a society are not the ones being argued, but the ones that are assumed.
- C.S. Lewis

Goose

Post #10

Post by Goose »

Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:"Doubt" is entirely subjective. Hardly an objective historical criterion.
Let's look at some parts of the Historical method indicating doubt is an important part of the process.
Historical method per wiki:
You have asserted that "doubt is an important part of the process." Let's look closer at what Louis Gottschalk has to say about "doubt" over the event in question.
Louis Gottschalk adds an additional consideration: "Even when the fact in question may not be well-known, certain kinds of statements are both incidental and probable to such a degree that error or falsehood seems unlikely. If an ancient inscription on a road tells us that a certain proconsul built that road while Augustus was princeps, it may be doubted without further corroboration that that proconsul really built the road, but would be harder to doubt that the road was built during the principate of Augusutus. If an advertisement informs readers that 'A and B Coffee may be bought at any reliable grocer's at the unusual price of fifty cents a pound,' all the inferences of the advertisement may well be doubted without corroboration except that there is a brand of coffee on the market called 'A and B Coffee.'" (higlights and underline added by me)
Firstly, "doubt" is not important to the process as it is added as an "additional consideration." It is not listed as a criterion in the historical methodology. Gottschalk knows better than to try to make this a criterion so he tags it on as an "additional consideration." Secondly, he says, "when the fact in question may not be well known." He is referring to facts that are not well supported with evidence and are incidental. Lastly, and most importantly, "seems" unlikely is an attempt to tag on an entirely subjective "consideration" into the historical method. What seems unlikely to you may not seem unlikely to me. The "consideration" of doubt implies not being completely convinced. But what one person requires to be convinced may differ from another person. Let's not confuse being personally convinced with establishing what is historical using an objective methodology. This is where your attempt to introduce "reasons to doubt" into my argument (A) is fallacious. And thus I reject it.



Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:The argument, as you have it written, could be stated to lead to the conclusion using only evidence in favor without any consideration for whether one event requires a greater burden of proof than another.
Why would you need a greater burden of proof for one event over another unless you a priori decide one event is not possible?
Historical methodology is all about whether an event is probable.
Probable or not probable is the conclusion. But it seems you want to make a judgment on probability BEFORE we have looked at the evidence. Don't you see the circularity here? I think the event is not probable, therefore more evidence.
Chaosborders wrote:If one event has factors that make it less probable, then it requires a greater amount of evidence in its favor.
What factors would those be? How much more evidence? Give me an objective amount.
Chaosborders wrote:The way your argument is phrased, an equal amount of evidence in favor is all that is required to arrive at the conclusion. All you technically have to do is show that [mundane historical event x] has a single mention and is accepted as historically true, so obviously the resurrection, with such and such evidence in favor, has enough to be accepted as historically factual. I do not know if something along those lines was/is your intention, but I am not inclined to accept an argument that allows such reasoning, as it neglects significant parts of historical methodology.
Which "significant parts" of historical methodology have I neglected? Name them.
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:This leads to the conclusion the argument as stated contains an Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Not sure how you figure I'll be arguing by Reductio ad absurdum when I'm not trying to disprove a proposition. By the way, Reductio ad absurdum is in general not a fallacious form of argument.
I’m not saying you will be arguing BY Reductio ad absurdum, I’m saying that your argument can be dispelled by it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum. I think your argument as phrased can usher in almost anything as historically factual, including contradictory things, thus per reductio ad absurdum is a faulty argument.
I had originally misunderstood you here and you copied my post before I edited it. See my last post.


Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:Whether it is valid or not is irrelevant.
Absolutely false. If an argument is invalid we can not be sure of the truth of the conclusion. So validity is very relevant.
Chaosborders wrote:It is unsound.
We haven't got to this stage yet.
If your premise is faulty, validity is irrelevant because the argument isn’t sound. I am asserting that your premise is faulty, so apparently we are at that stage.
If we have moved on to soundness then you tacitly accept the validity of the argument. And asserting the premise is faulty is not enough, I'm afraid.


Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:My re-wording forces the argument to stay in line with the historical method and does not automatically result in a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy. If you can prove it with said rewording, then you will have proved your side of the case.
Your rewording interjects a dynamic that is not stated in the question for debate. You should have thought of this earlier.
My rewording makes the argument conform to historical methodology, such that the resurrection is being judged as an event by ALL the same criteria as any other event, not just criteria in favor of an event. If you would like to reword the argument yourself to the same effect be my guest.
A priori doubt of the event is NOT an objective historical criterion. Not even the source you cite above lists it as an official criterion but rather as an additional consideration regarding incidental not well supported details.
Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote:
Chaosborders wrote:If you insist on using your argument as stated, that is fine, but I do not think it will be hard to show it as Reductio ad absurdum. As such, I would advise using a modified version that avoids the issue, or coming up with a odifferent argument.
I insist. So one last time. Do you acknowledge it is valid?
Part of my problem with deciding whether or not the argument JUST has a problem with soundness is that “good� is so loosely defined. But for the sake of moving on I will consider it as valid. However, as phrased by yourself, I still assert it is unsound, so caring about validity prior to establishing the soundness of its premise seems rather pointless.
Actually I thought I defined "good" quite well. But we can further define this using a more vigorous criteria for what constitutes "good" evidence if wish. We need to resolve this issue with validity. I'm not progressing further until we have resolved this. You'll just use it later as way to escape the conclusion of the argument if we don't address it here and now.


Chaosborders wrote:
Goose wrote: I think we are going to need more than 10 posts each. What do you think? :blink:
I was assuming it was ten rounds, to be started once we actually start posting evidence. So yes, definitely more than just 10 posts each.
OK, we'll gage it as we go.

Post Reply