For all the Bible believing bloggers who insist that belief in miracles can be based on evidence, I would like to suggest the following hypothetical:
Imagine sitting on a jury in a murder case. Three witnesses testify that they saw the defendant shoot the victim three times in the chest. These witnesses testified at great personal risk because the defendant is a powerful man in the community. They also testify that there were twenty other people in the room who saw the shooting. (For this last point we have to assume that the judge doesn't understand the rules of evidence.) On the other side of the coin, an expert testifies that ballistic testing shows that the bullets in the victim's body could not have come from the defendant's gun. The bullets in fact match a gun belonging to another person who was at the scene and gun powder residue from that gun was found on the other person's hand.
If I were sitting on that jury, I would vote to acquit. Ballistics experts are highly confident in the techniques that are used to establish whether a particular bullet came from a particular gun (at least they always are on TV). I might not be able to explain why all three witnesses identified the wrong man as the shooter, but I believe that the witness is much more likely to be wrong than the science.
If, on the other hand, I were a Bible believing Christian, I suppose I would have to vote to convict. As convincing as the science might be there could have been some supernatural agent that altered the bullets so that when they were tested they appeared not to come from the defendant's gun. After all, if I am convinced that the laws of nature were suspended two thousand years ago based on stories recorded decades after the fact just because I believe that the ultimate source of those stories was eyewitness testimony, how can I doubt the testimony of eyewitnesses that I have heard directly? Wouldn't it just be anti-supernatural bias that would cause me to prefer the science of the ballistics test to the testimony of the eye witnesses?
It seems like every week or two I hear some story about a man being released from prison because DNA testing that was not available at the time of his conviction now shows that he could not have committed the crime. Often the man had been convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony. I wonder how many Bible believers read these stories and worry that naturalistic presuppositions which favor science over eyewitness accounts might be putting dangerous criminals back on the street.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
A third explanation: the gun was fired by the mobster and then planted on the other man. Anyway, as a Bible-believing Christian, I have no problem with naturalistic explanations so far as they go---but at some point, naturalistic explanations fail.
ReplyDeleteHow do you know when its time to start considering the possibility of supernatural explanations?
ReplyDeleteWhen naturalistic explanations start becoming increasingly improbable. I'm actually skeptical of a lot of supernatural happenings outside the Bible.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I'm curious as to your thoughts on this: http://faithandphilosophy.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/a-dialogue/
That doesn't sound like much of a standard. Improbable things happen every day.
ReplyDeleteI have heard that a very convincing argument can be made that all of the natural explanations for the Book of Mormon fail to account for the evidence. If I found this to be so, would I be justified in concluding that Joseph Smith really read it out of a hat? Wouldn't it be wiser form me simply to say that I don't know what caused it?
Don't the laws of probability also depend on the uniformity of natural law? Even if I assessed the probability of each natural explanation as low, that would not give me a basis to assess the probability of any supernatural explanation any higher.
I don't think your dialogue really captures Hume's arguments.
I haven't closely looked into the evidence on the Book of Mormon so I can't say what my explanation would be except that I am quite sure that it was not of God.
ReplyDeleteThe laws of probability do indeed depend on the uniformity of nature---which I also believe in. I just believe that the laws of nature are qualified with the phrase, "all things being equal." If God intervenes, then all things are not equal.
You are right that "improbable" may not be the best word: I would start considering supernatural causes when naturalistic explanations start sounding a bit absurd or wildly speculative.
And yes, I realize that I oversimplified Hume: I also oversimplified Thomas's position.
I heard about the Book of Mormon argument when I was listening to one of the Great Courses on CD from the Teaching Company. The professor, who was definitely not a Mormon, said that a strong argument can be made that Joseph Smith didn't have the necessary skills or education to write the Book of Mormon and that there are serious flaws in all the other naturalistic explanations that have been offered. I have not studied it for myself, but it sounds very much like the arguments I regularly see for the historicity of the resurrection.
ReplyDeleteJoseph Smith, Mohammed, and others with so-called "revelations" are neither here nor there so far as I am concerned. All that I'll say is that the revelation of Christianity and those of other religions are quite divergent---so much so that criticism of Joseph Smith or Mohammed would not have an effect on my view of the Christian scriptures.
ReplyDeleteVinny's analogy is good.
ReplyDeleteYou really need to think like a policeman when investigating the start of a religion.
If something is scientifically impossible, like walking on water, then stories about it are false.
This rule of thumb works for every religion except the religion of the person you are talking to, whose religion is always the one which is the True Religion, while the others are fakes.
Of course, Christianity cannot be a fraud because the authorities punished the early Christians, which proves they were not fraudulent hoaxers.
Isn't that how the logic goes? If somebody is killed for preaching lies that is proof they were not preaching lies?
"If something is scientifically impossible, like walking on water, then stories about it are false."
ReplyDeleteOnly on the assumption of materialism.
It is not an assumption, unless you want to show that anybody has walked on water.
ReplyDeleteYou can't. All you have is an Old Book that has talking animals in it.
Old Books are not evidence. Reality is evidence.
"Old Books are not evidence."
ReplyDeleteSo did Hannibal cross the alps?
"It is not an assumption, unless you want to show that anybody has walked on water."
Materialism is an assumption---and a faulty one. Are the laws of logic material or non-material?
I see Pugh knows nothing about materialism.
ReplyDeleteOr history, if he compares the well-documented stories about Hannibal with books with talking animals in them.
Perhaps though if he continues blogging he can persuade people that we should believe in a talking donkey.
All Pugh has to do is produce evidence of the supernatural.
He cannot. We win.
"He cannot. We win."
ReplyDeleteThe evidence has been rejected on the grounds that it does not fit with your preconceived notions about what is possible.
"I see Pugh knows nothing about materialism."
I have made great study of it, actually. Particularly logical positivism.
"Or history, if he compares the well-documented stories about Hannibal with books with talking animals in them."
There is more manuscript evidence to support the story of Balaam than there is to support the story of Hannibal.
Understand that I don't expect you to accept my evidence. Since you have appointed yourself judge over what does and does not count as good evidence, my case is doomed from the start.
Your case involves a talking animal and a herd of pigs possessed by demons.
ReplyDeleteYou lose.
Your religion is just one that many people have made up.
In the real world, people always assume there are no supernatural beings.
It is an assumption that works extremely well, as shown by the fact that people are locked up when they start talking to these demons and angels that Christianity say exists.
There just are no demons interfering with the laws of nature.
Nobody has ever seen a possessed pig, no matter what Old Book you have which says they exist.
P.F. Pugh: There is more manuscript evidence to support the story of Balaam than there is to support the story of Hannibal.
ReplyDelete.
I’ve been lurking through this conversation and every time my eyes pass this sentence, I am jolted. It absolutely holds me spellbound.
Xeroxing a piece of evidence does not create two pieces of evidence.
I cannot fathom why this argument would hold any sway with any person.
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteThat has always struck me as rather odd, too. I wonder how many manuscripts of the Iliad we would need before it ceased being fiction.
"Your case involves a talking animal and a herd of pigs possessed by demons.
ReplyDeleteYou lose."
You make my point better than I ever could. We are talking metaphysics, not physics.
"Xeroxing a piece of evidence does not create two pieces of evidence."
When speaking of historical documents, more manuscript copies means more evidence. We are talking about a document that purports to be a historical account (unlike the Iliad) and therefore we need to look at manuscript evidence. The best evidence suggests that the various documents composing the Bible were written soon after the events they describe.
But again, I don't expect that you will accept the evidence due to preconceived notions.
P.F. Hugh,
ReplyDeleteI could be wrong but I don’t think the Iliad represents itself as being fiction and there may in fact have been a Trojan War. I think we conclude that it is fiction based on the fantastic stories it contains. Manuscript evidence may help us figure out what was originally written, but the extent to which the quantity of manuscripts provides evidence of the truth of what is written is speculative at best.
You may be correct that the gospels were written “soon” after the events they describe in comparison to many other ancient documents, although not as soon as some, e.g., Caesar’s Commentaries. Nevertheless, they are still 30-70 years after the event, give or take a decade on either end. Moreover, the earliest manuscript evidence we have is a credit-card sized scrap dated almost a century after the event and not much of anything for the better part of a century after that. Imagine if the earliest written accounts of the Battle of Gettysburg weren’t dated to the 20th century and we lacked manuscript evidence prior to the 21st century.
Part of the point of my analogy is that even if they are comparable to other historical accounts in the ancient world, the gospels pale in comparison to the kind of testimony that we routinely reject today when it conflicts with what science tells us.
As far as my preconceived notions go, I notice that you are happy to embrace methodological naturalism when think you can argue that the evidence favors your position. You only start attacking its assumptions when it stops helping you.
"I think we conclude that it is fiction based on the fantastic stories it contains."
ReplyDeleteWe conclude that it is fiction because it's an epic poem. Poetry is not about facts, but about embellishing them.
"Moreover, the earliest manuscript evidence we have is a credit-card sized scrap dated almost a century after the event and not much of anything for the better part of a century after that."
The earliest manuscript evidence we have for Caesar's commentaries dates from the 10th century.
"As far as my preconceived notions go, I notice that you are happy to embrace methodological naturalism when think you can argue that the evidence favors your position."
On the contrary, it is precisely because I know what the supernatural is that I know when I am not in its presence.
Let me illustrate:
If I see a man light a fire, I am confident that there is nothing supernatural involved.
If I see a man call fire from Heaven, I can be fairly certain that something supernatural is involved.
It is precisely because I understand the way that natural forces work that I believe in miracles. It was precisely because Balaam knew that donkey's don't talk that he knew it was a miracle when his did. It is precisely because the disciples knew that people don't walk on water that they were afraid when Jesus did.
This kind of snobbery really doesn't become us: people in past ages weren't ignorant of physical reality---they knew that virgins don't have children, donkeys don't talk, men don't rise from the grave. It is exactly because they were not ignorant that they knew that these were miracles. People then were no more or less stupid than we are today.
Let's not let chronological "superiority" blind us.
P.F. Hugh,
ReplyDeleteIf I see a man call fire from heaven, I might have to give the question of the supernatural some further thought. However, when I read an ancient story of a man calling fire from heaven, I have to consider the fact that the ancient world is full of legends and myths.
While it may be true that ancient peoples understood many things about physical reality, they were superstitious and ignorant about many things as well. There were many natural phenomena likes storms and diseases that they attributed to the action of supernatural agents. It is not snobbery to recognize that a propensity for magical thinking causes people to embrace supernatural explanations and to credulously pass along supernatural stories.
"While it may be true that ancient peoples understood many things about physical reality, they were superstitious and ignorant about many things as well."
ReplyDeleteNo more than we are---they recognized supernatural causes, we recognize natural ones---who is to say that one must be wrong?
"There were many natural phenomena likes storms and diseases that they attributed to the action of supernatural agents."
I have no problem with the idea that an event might have both a supernatural and a natural cause. Simply because I can identify the physical cause of a disease or storm does not mean that there is no purpose to it.
In any case, the ancients recognized that lightning and disease were regular occurences. But everyone knows that people don't just rise from the dead. There's a world of difference between lightning striking and a dead guy walking after having been beaten to a pulp, hung up naked for three hours, and then stabbed.
In any case, I know I won't convince you, so I'm going to conclude this by linking to the following quote: http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/2010/07/15/models-and-hermeneutics/
Sorry, I meant this one: http://spiritualmeanderings.wordpress.com/2010/07/03/chesterton-on-miracles/
ReplyDeletePUGH
ReplyDeletethey knew that virgins don't have children, donkeys don't talk, men don't rise from the grave
CARR
And they known that Angels do not come down from Heaven to give Americans Golden Plates to translate.
But people did believe that Heaven was somehow above the sky, and so made up stories of their Jesus taking off into the sky and passing through a cloud on his way to Heaven.
Produce a talking donkey.
You can't. All you have is an Old Book.
No talking donkeys. No supernatural.Nothing.
Just an Old Book.
An Old Book where people thought you could take off into the sky and end up in Heaven.
PUGH
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking of historical documents, more manuscript copies means more evidence.
CARR
Yes.
We have loads of evidence that Christians would change anything in their Holy Books if the change made them more theologically correct.
Some of this evidence can be found at Christians cook their own books
P.F. Pugh,
ReplyDeleteThat was an interesting turn. You went from “more manuscript evidence” to “the various documents composing the Bible were written soon after the events they describe.” I wonder if you recognize the difference.
Regardless, let’s look at some evidence--rather than conjecture and assertion—and since Balaam is the topic of conversation; Balaam it shall be.
We need to determine when this incident is supposed to have occurred. And immediately run into our first problem. The donkey talked during the Hebrews Exodus from Egypt. Yet nailing that date down has been extremely difficult. According to 1 Kings. 6:1, the Exodus happened 15th Century BCE. But archeology does not support Joshua’s conquest at this time period (See this article outlining various difficulties) so we have people attempting to move the date closer to the 14th or even 13th Century BCE. The problem with this date is that Egypt is in apparent tranquility, and we lose support for the Ten Plagues. So others, utilizing the Ipuwer Papyrus claim the Exodus happened in the 25th or 24th Century BCE(!) If one wants Joshua’s conquest, one places it in the 14th Century. If one wants the plagues, one places it in the 25th Century. If one wants the Bible—the 15th Century. If one realizes it is myth—one is supported by all the evidence.
Depending on one’s evidence, we can date Balaam in the 25th, 15th, or even possibly the 13th Century BCE. To give you the best possible situation, I will assume 1300 BCE +/- 100 years. (The other dates only exacerbate the difference in time.)
Now we need to determine when the account was written down. And (of course) immediately run into our second problem. Traditionally, the Pentateuch was credited to Moses. Modern scholarship has completely debunked that theory in all but the most conservative of Sunday Schools. There are three (3) reasons I will touch on, from weaker to stronger.
1) The Books refer to events post-Moses. His death (Deut. 34), kings in Israel (Deut. 17:15), and a city named “Dan.” (Gen. 14:14) “Dan” was named after the tribe that concurred the city under Joshua. (Josh. 19:47) You know…after Moses is dead.
ReplyDelete2) There was no “Hebrew” language to write at the time. The Hebrew alphabet derived from the Phoenician alphabet. Think about that for a second. Phoenicia was a country to the north of Canaan, which is to the north of Egypt. While the Phoenicians were traders and sailors, the concept that the Hebrews could develop their own language based upon Phoenician while captive by the Egyptians, with no Egyptian influence, is mind-boggling.
An equivalent analogy would be the slaves in America developing their own language based upon Portuguese (not Spanish), and immediately upon Emancipation, speaking only that language. A language with little, to no English influence.
The earliest writing we have of Hebrew is dated to the 10th Century BCE. Nothing to indicate it was even around in the 13th Century.
An additional problem for having Moses write this story.
3) Documentary Hypothesis [warning: pdf file] The demonstration the Pentateuch was comprised by many authors, and later edited together. This makes dating the writing even more difficult. Interestingly, Balaam’s story demonstrates Documentary Hypothesis in action. While many Christians know the Sunday School flannel graph version of a talking donkey; few have read it with a critical eye.
Moabite Princes requested Balaam to go with them. God tells Balaam to go. (Num. 22:20) So Balaam does. And God gets angry because Balaam goes. (Num. 22:22). God’s angel blocks the donkey’s path, the donkey stops, Balaam gets mad, and the Donkey talks. Then God’s angel says, “You’re lucky, because if you had kept going, I would have killed you.” Num. 22:33. Balaam naturally says, “Oh. O.K., I’ll go back.” When the angel replies, “No, keep going” Num 22:35.
We can actually see where the talking-donkey story was inserted:
A. God says Go (22:20)
…B. God gets angry (22:22)
…B. God’s Angel attempts to stop Balaam (22:23-34)
A. God’s Angel says Go (22:35)
Either YHWH is schizophrenic (“Go!” “Don’t Go! “Go!) or we have inserted the talking donkey story into the larger story of Balaam.
So when did this happen? When was the story written?
ReplyDeletePerhaps looking at the manuscript evidence will help.
The earliest texts we have are the famous Dead Sea Scrolls, dated roughly 200 BCE – 50 CE. Again, I will grant you the most favorable date of 200 BCE. While we know the stories existed prior to this date, it is a matter of speculation (and copious scholarly debate) as to when these stories were generated. Anytime between 1300 (or more) BCE and 200 BCE.
There is no evidence Balaam’s story was written soon after it occurred. We cannot determine when it happened, nor when it was written, so to claim it was “soon after” is speculation built upon conjecture with a dash of hopes & dreams.
Having copies of manuscripts at least 1000 years after the event (assuming the absolute best possible scenario—worst case it is two millennium after the event!) does not make it “more evidence.”
No, P.F. Pugh, there is no historian who claims this. (King Arthur’s stories were documented 6 centuries after their alleged occurrence—does this mean the more scribes copied the story, the “better” the historical record?)
Finally, as to “pre-conceived notions”—this is why we look at evidence. Why we study. Why we learn. Sure, we all have “pre-conceived notions.” We may think the sun travels around the earth because we watch it move across the sky. Once we study the issue, we recognize our initial concept is incorrect.
If you think I have pre-conceived notions—you are correct. I do. Based upon the research I have performed, I am not persuaded by a myth of a long-ago talking donkey any more than I am by a Grilled-Cheese Mary. (Ironically, of course, being a deconvert.) If you think otherwise--bring forth the evidence! Unfounded statements like, “When speaking of historical documents, more manuscript copies means more evidence” do not move me. I want facts. Support. Demonstration. Show when the event occurred. Show when it was written. Show when the manuscripts were created.
If you don’t have any support—that’s O.K. too. But just so you know, the complaint it is my fault you can’t prove your case when you don’t have any evidence comes across a bit…whiny.
I apologize, Vinny, it has taken me some time to get back to your question. You asked my opinion of this analogy.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was fine. I am generally forgiving on analogies—attempting to figure out what the person is saying. Too many times I have watched fights develop by picking apart analogies, and we can lose focus regarding the original position.
I understood you to be saying we weigh various types of evidence differently, and consider scientific evidence as more reliable than eyewitness testimony. I agree. The same way we consider cross-examination (admission by a party opponent) to hold more sway than examination (being asked questions by one’s own attorney.)
Dagoods,
ReplyDeleteApologists love to claim that the resurrection is as well attested as any event in ancient history. I believe this to be patently false, but refuting it requires a rather involved examination of what we think we know about the ancient world and how we think we know it.
What I like about this analogy is that it takes the discussion out of the ancient world and into the modern one. If apologists want to describe the gospels as eyewitness testimony, let's look at what we do in a modern court of law when eyewitness testimony contradicts the conclusions of science. I think it is simpler to show why we prefer science to human memory in a modern trial than it is to show why we are more certain of Hannibal crossing the Alps than we are of Jesus walking on water.
I've been trying it out on various apologists' blogs over the last few days. Needless to say, most have them have found it no more convincing than Mr. Pugh did, but I think they are finding that standard fall backs like appealing to the quantity of manuscript evidence don't really meet the objection.
"I wonder how many Bible believers read these stories and worry that naturalistic presuppositions which favor science over eyewitness accounts might be putting dangerous criminals back on the street."
ReplyDeleteMy guess would be, "none".
RkBall,
ReplyDeleteThat would be my guess as well which I think suggests that they have naturalistic presuppositions of their own.