Billy, about McDowell's book 'Evidence...', which I'm currently reading: first off, it's not a book about science, we both know; its focuses are the Bible, Jesus, and in the new part 4, responses to various branches of modern and postmodern thought. A lot of it catalogues quotations from eminent qualified thinkers showing their high regard for the evidence on offer; therefore, to judge the evidence more thoroughly for yourself - though quite a lot of this is itself on show - you might need to do further research, eg read works by the academics quoted. From what I've read so far of 'Evidence', I'm impressed by the esteem that people of real learning and experience - scholars, academics and the like - have for the evidence on offer. Particularly concerning the resurrection, the section I'm reading now. I'll quote just one, Lord Darling, a former Chief Justice of England: 'On that greatest point (the resurrection) we are not merely asked to have faith. In it's favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true' p219.
Against this I'll just quote from the Dawkins website, not to make any point other than to show what a battle of ideas we have on our hands: "But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "
Jonathan, sorry, I will come back to the 'physical evidence' question.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.JPG)
4 comments:
I'm very wary of claiming too much at any stage of this blog strand. I restate, at present I'm try to write no more than about 20min per day. And a problem so far, Billy, has been that often you react as if I'm trying to say far more than I am. I think a little patience is needed, and if you can't wait for a response out of genuine curiosity for answers rather than wanting a sense of dominance in the discussion, then I think my encouragement to read up more stuff for yourself has validity.
"Lord Darling, a former Chief Justice of England: 'On that greatest point (the resurrection) we are not merely asked to have faith. In it's favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true'"
While this is certainly an interesting quote, which makes some big claims, more detail is needed. It talks about the power of the evidence, but does not state what it actually IS.
Does McDowell merely include this quote in isolation, or does he go into detail about what Lord Darling was saying? If he does go into detail, I would be interested to know what Darling considered to be such strong evidence.
On a separate note, as long as you get to your ideas for physical evidence, that's the important thing. Just asking questions about Darling to pass the time until then.
Jonathan.
Bruce,
Telling me to read when I already have is not going to answer anything. I still dont see where you think I am overextending what you say. You have said god is not testable. How do you think I am misinterpreting you when I say that you claim there is no tangable evidence? Testing forms the basis of tangable evidence.
I have to agree with Jonathan on the Lord Darling quote. It is not sufficient to use an arguement from authority - it is a fallacy (see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority )
especially when none of this so called evidence is presented . That's really no better than claiming Osama bin Laden as evidence for Islam, or that Farmfoods breaded Chicken is the best because Kerry Katatonia says so.
Do you think this is a reasonable statement without evidence to back it up "In it's favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true'"
If this were really the case, dont you think Jonathan and I would still believe?
Lets briefly look at the resurrection.
1 Paul, Mark and Luke (possibly even Matthew) Were not witnesses to the crucifixion. The apostleJohn may not even be the author of the book that bears his name
2 The gospel accounts are not consistent. When did he rise? who was/were the first to see him? was the tomb open? was it empty or were there 1 or two men, or where they angels. Who was the first to see him? was he recognised - whe are told that he appeared to the 12 - I thought Judas was dead! Where did he first appear?
Do you still think that was a reasonable claim, especially since we cant tie any of these "witnesses" down to actually having been there? They wrote at best second hand accounts many years after the death of Jesus. I think Lord Darling may be somewhat wrong in his statement - one with no evidence to back it up.
We can also couple this to the fact that it is unlikely that the trial would have went ahead at passover, and the fact that prophecies relating to the crucificion are made up, such as Psalm 22:16. Here are a few links to ponder http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/sanhedrin.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/pierce.html it is interesting how Ps 22 becomes a chinese whisper through dfferent translations that are not based on the original hebrew. All this and more presents a very negative view on the resurrection.
This is yet another example about the dishonesty/incompetence of McDowell.
I would say that you need to be more critical and less trusting of what you read. Did you even consider whether it was even legitimate to cite Lord Darling as an authority on the resurrection? I must say, given his standards, my faith in the legal system is further reduced.
Take care
Billy
I'm further intrigued by the fact that in the Lord Darling quote, he uses the words "positive AND NEGATIVE".
How could negative exidence prove the resurrection story to be true? Now I'm especially keen to know what it is.
Jonathan.
Post a Comment