Belief in The Resurrection - Faith, or Fact Based

[William]

Q: Is belief in The Resurrection based on fact or based on faith?

From a discussion in another thread;
______________________________


[Replying to Realworldjack in post #222]

Let us recall that it was you who stated,

that the stories of the empty tomb where anything other than given as hearsay and expected to be received in faith.

This is what I stated;

"What has been reported from the different sources do not altogether align - and one thing which does come across is that folk did not seem to recognize that the person claiming to have resurrected was the same person they had followed for all those months. I am happy to examine what you table as explanation for this phenomena."

I also stated;
I am not arguing that the stories themselves were or were not penned as true accounts of actual events by the very one(s) who experienced these things they claim to have experienced.
My argument is that we can only take their stories as hearsay, because we did not witness those events. What we each DO with the hearsay depends upon our faith in the stories being true, our faith that the stories being false, or in our lack of faith due to the nature of the evidence.

Are you saying, NONE of it aligns?

A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

Because you see, we have those who complain that much of the information is so closely the "aligned", they want to insist that there must, and had to be copying going on between the authors.

Apparently there are biblical scholars who accept that in those cases, copying may have occurred.

So then, exactly what would we expect? If they all report the same exact events, in the same exact way, I think we would have complaints that something would not be right here.

Yes - that it was unnecessary to have four exact copies of the same data.

If they report completely different, and contradictory information, then we would complain that something is not quite right.

Yes.

However, it seems to me we have exactly what we would expect.

Which still wouldn't do away with the idea that the stories were concocted by the priesthood...such would be intelligent enough to realize that to sell the story there needs to be more than one version, especially since there are no coinciding stories circulating outside of the religion.
For example - some believe that [historical] Jesus had scribes, but there is no evidence that anyone was recording his words and nothing of the sort has been found so far.

In other words, we have some events describe in almost the same way, while we have others who record events the others may leave out, and we have some who report the same events with differences in the story. So??????? What exactly would are you looking for?

I am looking for evidence to the claim that Jesus died. [and was thus resurrected.]

Would you want them to record the same exact stories, in the same exact way? Would you want them to tell completely different stories which would contradict each other? I mean, exactly what would you accept?

Based upon the stories regarding Jesus, I would expect that Jesus didn't really die.

First, your wording is sort of strange here? You seem to be saying, they did not recognize him as the same person as they had followed, as if they recognized him as someone else? However, this is not the way it is recorded. In Luke 24 we read,

"While they were talking and discussing, Jesus Himself approached and began traveling with them. But their eyes were kept from recognizing Him".

So here we see, it is not as though they recognize him as someone else, but rather, they simply were, "kept from recognizing him". However, as we move on a few verses later we read,

"And then their eyes were opened and they recognized Him".

Firstly they must have seen him as 'someone else' for them to recognize that 'someone else' had entered into their company.
But what we do not know [and thus cannot assume] is what the writer meant in the use of the words.
Does it mean that their minds were being played with in some unknown manner or does it mean that it was something else about the stranger suddenly in their company which lead them to conclude they were in the presence of someone who was so just like the Jesus they knew, that it must have been him, or was Jesus' body was capable of 'shape-shifting' [changing it's appearance.]

However, in relation to the story of the stranger in the company, we see that the story unfolds over the course of a whole day, with the stranger telling them all sorts of things so that the dots connected [starting out by calling them 'fools' for not being able to do this for themselves] and by the end of the day, we are informed that they had no choice but to accept the evidence that the stranger [who they did not recognize as Jesus because it was a different body] was the same person that they had followed all those previous months.

As soon as they came to that conclusion, the stranger then vanished. [became invisible to them/appeared to no longer be in their company.]

Okay, as we turn our attention to the incident with Mary Magdalene, what we see as recorded in John 20, is (Mary) "Thinking that He was the gardener". Notice, it does not say, "recognizing him as the gardener".

Why would Mary know what the gardener looked like? Clearly she assumes a stranger there with the two other strangers is the caretaker and clearly she is confused and distressed.
But most importantly, she does not recognize the stranger until he calls her by her name...so it must have been how the stranger had done this which convinced Mary that it was Jesus.

Well, the only other incident I know of would be at daybreak, with the disciples in a boat off shore, and see Jesus on shore, as they have been fishing through the night with no catch. Jesus instructs them where to cast the net, and of course they have a net so full, it is difficult to pull the net in, and it is at this point, one of the disciples, does not "recognize" (as if he can actually see him) this as Jesus, but simply says, "It is the Lord"! Once they were all on shore, as it is recorded, they all seem to recognize this person as Jesus.

These are the only events such as this I am aware of. The above would not be my "explanation for this phenomena" because I have no explanation. Rather, this is the way it is recorded.

So we have hearsay [the stories] and within that, we have incidences which align and form an image of someone who has a distinctly different body than the normal Human form as it appears to be able to do things which normal human forms are not seen to be capable of doing.

But overall, there is nothing about the story of the resurrection [The Subject] which can be pointed to as factual [rather than hearsay] and thus, to believe in said story - one has to do so on faith.

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #679]

We think the focus should be at different points. Weve shared why we think so and what is involved and what we think is true and what we think follows. Ive nothing new to add to that post. I will respond to your later post:

Then I see no reason not to categorize your response(s) as a direct representation(s) of cognitive dissonance and/or conformation bias.

Cognitive dissonance because you stated, many replies ago, that the supernatural claims of Jesus are the only ones you accept as established fact --- (paraphrased). Unless you now wish to admit it's a faith based belief?

Do you accept all historical claims as true? Do you accept all scientific claims as true? Or do you accept some and not others based on the evidence and reasoning you see behind them? Its the latter. Im not doing any different. This isnt cognitive dissonance.

Please re-read what I asked (i.e.) --> "the supernatural claims". Meaning, these are the only supernatural claims you accept as true. I do not feel any supernatural claim has sufficient merit to be warranted as true. Hence, I currently reject them all. This is a why I do not possess a cognitive dissconance. You instead somehow make a special exception for the claims from Jesus. We have virtually no first hand accounts. And to boot, the 4 Gospels are written by anonymous writers. I've explained how/why this is a problem. And yet, you state you have nothing to add?

Conformation bias because you are accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses. This is evidence by the fact that you seem to ignore many of my replies ---

I have neither ignored your replies nor those from others. Ive responded to them. Youve repeated the same things multiple times. When that is done Ill try to rephrase to try to clear up misunderstandings but I wont just keep responding to them as though I haven't already. This isn't confirmation bias.

Please see above in bold.

[TRANSPONDER]

Looking back, it's been quite a few pages since the resurrection (evidence for and against was discussed). apart from appeal to the 'empty tomb' and trying to use 1 Corinthians to prove the resurrection accounts. Since then it's been about it's been appealing to Faith, trying to make us doubt any conclusions we may come to and generally trying to kick the chessboard over when they see checkmate approaching.

I'd done My particular arguments for not crediting the resurrection accounts (Miracles don't happen' not being one of them) to death so I won't do them again, but it seems to me that the 'evidence' (and trying to fiddle it) aspect is done and we are on phase 2 - trying to scrape a draw in various ways (we can't be sure) and appealing to Faith. and some signs of phase 3 - tying to attack atheists and their motives. I'd say our case is 'Rested'.

[bluegreenearth]

What reliable evidence should one expect to find?

If supernatural resurrections occur in reality, then we should expect to observe medical evidence of decomposing corpses magically returning to an undecomposed state where all their vital organs are able to function again.

Regardless of that, the above isnt a hidden premise. All of the theories have ad hoc elements, as Ive already said, so that doesnt separate the theories from each other (assuming one doesnt think the cumulative case for theism is strong). This is an inference to the best explanation, not a purely deductive argument.

First of all, not all ad hoc elements are non-demonstrable elements. Some elements may be demonstrable but are considered ad hoc because they constitute an addition of extraneous information to their associated arguments for the purpose of saving them from being falsified. In any case, if all of the theories have ad hoc elements, then they should all be tentatively rejected until those elements are no longer ad hoc.

This is the same in the theory of electrons. In your language it "contains a hidden premise (e.g., electrons are things that exist in reality for electrons to be a justifiable inference to the best explanation of observations X, Y, and Z) which is not demonstrable. Belief in electrons isnt unsound because of this. You dont think the existence of electrons begs the question. To remain consistent, then you shouldnt accuse my argument of begging the question either. But, for some reason, logically talking about the supernatural changes things

As previously explained, unlike supernatural resurrections, the claim that electrons exist is demonstrated by novel testable predictions which can be routinely verified. Therefore, it is not necessary to presume electrons exist in reality because falsifiable predictions (i.e. experiments) demonstrate they exist in reality. Here is how the discovery of electrons is described in Wikipedia:

While studying electrical conductivity in rarefied gases in 1859, the German physicist Julius Plcker observed the radiation emitted from the cathode caused phosphorescent light to appear on the tube wall near the cathode; and the region of the phosphorescent light could be moved by application of a magnetic field.
In 1869, Plcker's student Johann Wilhelm Hittorf found that a solid body placed in between the cathode and the phosphorescence would cast a shadow upon the phosphorescent region of the tube. Hittorf inferred that there are straight rays emitted from the cathode and that the phosphorescence was caused by the rays striking the tube walls. In 1876, the German physicist Eugen Goldstein showed that the rays were emitted perpendicular to the cathode surface, which distinguished between the rays that were emitted from the cathode and the incandescent light. Goldstein dubbed the rays cathode rays.  Decades of experimental and theoretical research involving cathode rays were important in J. J. Thomson's eventual discovery of electrons.

During the 1870s, the English chemist and physicist Sir William Crookes developed the first cathode ray tube to have a high vacuum inside. He then showed in 1874 that the cathode rays can turn a small paddle wheel when placed in their path. Therefore, he concluded that the rays carried momentum. Furthermore, by applying a magnetic field, he was able to deflect the rays, thereby demonstrating that the beam behaved as though it were negatively charged. In 1879, he proposed that these properties could be explained by regarding cathode rays as composed of negatively charged gaseous molecules in a fourth state of matter in which the mean free path of the particles is so long that collisions may be ignored.

The German-born British physicist Arthur Schuster expanded upon Crookes's experiments by placing metal plates parallel to the cathode rays and applying an electric potential between the plates. The field deflected the rays toward the positively charged plate, providing further evidence that the rays carried negative charge. By measuring the amount of deflection for a given level of current, in 1890 Schuster was able to estimate the charge-to-mass ratio of the ray components. However, this produced a value that was more than a thousand times greater than what was expected, so little credence was given to his calculations at the time. This is because it was assumed that the charge carriers were much heavier hydrogen or nitrogen atoms. Schuster's estimates would subsequently turn out to be largely correct.

In 1892 Hendrik Lorentz suggested that the mass of these particles (electrons) could be a consequence of their electric charge.

While studying naturally fluorescing minerals in 1896, the French physicist Henri Becquerel discovered that they emitted radiation without any exposure to an external energy source. These radioactive materials became the subject of much interest by scientists, including the New Zealand physicist Ernest Rutherford who discovered they emitted particles. He designated these particles alpha and beta, on the basis of their ability to penetrate matter. In 1900, Becquerel showed that the beta rays emitted by radium could be deflected by an electric field, and that their mass-to-charge ratio was the same as for cathode rays. This evidence strengthened the view that electrons existed as components of atoms.

In 1897, the British physicist J. J. Thomson, with his colleagues John S. Townsend and H. A. Wilson, performed experiments indicating that cathode rays really were unique particles, rather than waves, atoms or molecules as was believed earlier. Thomson made good estimates of both the charge e and the mass m, finding that cathode ray particles, which he called "corpuscles", had perhaps one thousandth of the mass of the least massive ion known: hydrogen. He showed that their charge-to-mass ratio, e/m, was independent of cathode material. He further showed that the negatively charged particles produced by radioactive materials, by heated materials and by illuminated materials were universal. The name electron was adopted for these particles by the scientific community, mainly due to the advocation by G. F. FitzGerald, J. Larmor, and H. A. Lorentz. 

I fail to recognize any meaningful parallels between your supernatural resurrection argument and the discovery of electrons described above. For one, all of those falsifiable experiments (i.e. novel testable predictions) can be conducted and observed today to consistently produce identical results in reality. What equivalently reliable and falsifiable predictions could we make and subsequently verify as a means of demonstrating the occurrence of supernatural resurrections in reality for us to justifiably infer that the occurrence of a supernatural resurrection in the past would have been the most likely cause of the NT accounts?

[nobspeople]

Page 73/74 and still can't get past the fact that the belief in god is a belief and has little to nothing to do with facts. Yet some continue to spout half truths at best - lies at worst - linguistic gymnastics and the like.
It makes them look foolish trying to justify something that's based on a belief as factual. I surely hope it's stroking their ego, because 70-some pages of this 'justification' sure ain't doing much more than that.

[TRANSPONDER]

It's remarkable how far such a discussion can range. To begin with, the Bible -side will argue historical fact, taking the Gospel account as reliable (so don't blame me for making that my basis for argument) backed up with the argument that the disciples must actually have known the resurrection was true otherwise they would have never have allowed themselves to be martyred, refusing to recant...or so the early church traditions claimed. And of course Paul's references to those who saw the resurrected Christ being the connecting dot between Gospel and early church.

As soon as the evidence comes under question (for example, never mid there probably was no tomb -guard at all, even if there was Pilate colluding with the disciples to save Jesus makes more sense than a miracle) we seem to go on the evidence - questioning route and epistemology which, even if it means the evidence will no longer support the gospels (or at least not in That particular discussion it can no longer debunk them and it can all be left to Faith yet again.

[nobspeople]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #725]

the disciples must actually have known the resurrection was true otherwise they would have never have allowed themselves to be martyred, refusing to recant

It's amazing how people can trust men long dead that they've never met. They won't trust the government, but yeah.... long dead men? Sure. Makes sense (really?!?).
The need these people have for something to be true - ignoring all other possibilities - is, to me, a troubling aspect of humanity that hasn't yet died away or, at the very least, questioned.
Need is a strong thing - much stronger when one has to justify their lifestyle to others, but is more likely simply justifying their belief to themselves.

it can all be left to Faith yet again.

Can't everything be? I mean, faith is ALL these people have. So they must defend it even when it goes against all logic, common sense and what they know to be possible and likely. This type of faith causes suicide bombings and the like.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's the key to theist -think. I begins with faith and ends with it. In the middle, they try to argue on the evidence to validate the Faith. Very good. But in fact the evidence crumbles under scrutiny and so they revert to Faith again. Scientifically validated evidence doesn't do that, which is why they say 'science is always changing its' mind' as though tht was a bad thing. And if you think dogmatically, I suppose it would be. But what happens then is that the Dogma has to play catch -up so as not to get left behind.

That's why Believers can either be accepting the science and trying to adapt the dogma to it (like the age of the universe divided into 7 is '7 days') or they may simply deny the science.

[The Tanager]

Please re-read what I asked (i.e.) --> "the supernatural claims". Meaning, these are the only supernatural claims you accept as true. I do not feel any supernatural claim has sufficient merit to be warranted as true. Hence, I currently reject them all. This is a why I do not possess a cognitive dissconance. You instead somehow make a special exception for the claims from Jesus.

Thats how I read you the first time, so my response doesnt change. Why do you feel like no supernatural claim has sufficient merit? Hopefully its because of your assessment of the evidence and reasoning rather than blind adherence to naturalism or something like that. You simply have not been convinced by any argument youve come across for any supernatural claim. I agree with you on the assessment of most supernatural claims, if you take the above approach.

The difference regarding Jesus resurrection for me is not because of blind adherence to Christianity, though. Its because I think it has sufficient merit to be warranted as true. I reject the other claims, not because they arent Christian or about Jesus [for I do reject some miracle claims Christians make] but because I dont think they have sufficient merit to be warranted as true. This isnt cognitive dissonance or making a special exception but following the evidence and reasoning where one thinks it leads in EVERY individual case.

We have virtually no first hand accounts. And to boot, the 4 Gospels are written by anonymous writers. I've explained how/why this is a problem. And yet, you state you have nothing to add?

Yes, I do state that because Ive responded to why you think its a problem with why I dont think its a problem. When you repeat the same perceived problem, then my response is still the same and I have nothing to add.

[The Tanager]

If supernatural resurrections occur in reality, then we should expect to observe medical evidence of decomposing corpses magically returning to an undecomposed state where all their vital organs are able to function again.

We are assessing one supposed resurrection two thousand years ago, where there isnt this kind of medical evidence recorded and available.

First of all, not all ad hoc elements are non-demonstrable elements. Some elements may be demonstrable but are considered ad hoc because they constitute an addition of extraneous information to their associated arguments for the purpose of saving them from being falsified. In any case, if all of the theories have ad hoc elements, then they should all be tentatively rejected until those elements are no longer ad hoc.

Why? Most inferences to the best explanations will involve ad hoc elements. Just like the theory of electrons does. That theory should not be tentatively rejected.

As previously explained, unlike supernatural resurrections, the claim that electrons exist is demonstrated by novel testable predictions which can be routinely verified.

It sounds here that you are faulting historical inferences for not being scientific inferences (i.e., they dont have novel, testable predictions which can be routinely verified). That is only a fault if science is the only means to knowledge and its obviously not.

Yes, we had the stone-moving scenario and that, you may think, had novel, testable predictions that could be replicated. Yes and no. The method the theory talks about is testable in that way (namely, because it is a scientific issue...is that method physically possible in general?) but the historical claim being discussed, that this was the method used is not testable. History is not repeatable in that way.

Therefore, it is not necessary to presume electrons exist in reality because falsifiable predictions (i.e. experiments) demonstrate they exist in reality.

No. We still presume the electrons exist because something is causing those effects. From the various data, a thing we dub "electron" with the various characteristics needed to create those effects existing, makes the best sense of the data.

[POI]

Please re-read what I asked (i.e.) --> "the supernatural claims". Meaning, these are the only supernatural claims you accept as true. I do not feel any supernatural claim has sufficient merit to be warranted as true. Hence, I currently reject them all. This is a why I do not possess a cognitive dissconance. You instead somehow make a special exception for the claims from Jesus.

Thats how I read you the first time, so my response doesnt change. Why do you feel like no supernatural claim has sufficient merit? Hopefully its because of your assessment of the evidence and reasoning rather than blind adherence to naturalism or something like that. You simply have not been convinced by any argument youve come across for any supernatural claim. I agree with you on the assessment of most supernatural claims, if you take the above approach.

The difference regarding Jesus resurrection for me is not because of blind adherence to Christianity, though. Its because I think it has sufficient merit to be warranted as true. I reject the other claims, not because they arent Christian or about Jesus [for I do reject some miracle claims Christians make] but because I dont think they have sufficient merit to be warranted as true. This isnt cognitive dissonance or making a special exception but following the evidence and reasoning where one thinks it leads in EVERY individual case.

We already agreed that 'eyewitness' attestation would be virtually the only way to 'validate' a one time said ancient claimed event. You and I also agree as to the basic/general definition of 'eyewitness'. The accounts, from the Bible, are not "first hand eyewitness" accounts. Again, half the NT is written by Paul, who was not there during this claim. Virtually all the rest was written many decades later, by anonymous writers. Which means we can only speculate where they obtained their information? Hence, you demonstrate a HOPE that their sources were from where you want them to be.

Therefore, your conclusion is faith/hope based, and not grounded in fact. Thus, do you reconcile pure hope alone in your assessment? If not, then I guess you know the sources for the Gospels?

We have virtually no first hand accounts. And to boot, the 4 Gospels are written by anonymous writers. I've explained how/why this is a problem. And yet, you state you have nothing to add?

Yes, I do state that because Ive responded to why you think its a problem with why I dont think its a problem. When you repeat the same perceived problem, then my response is still the same and I have nothing to add.

Please see above.