1 | Religion » The motive for Christianity » 8/10/2018 3:41 am |
- Callum
- Replies: 45
-
RomanJoe wrote:Callum, in the case of Jesus, his death, and the early testimony of his resurrection, why do you think it's more plausible that a miracle took place than any alternative explanation? How can one assess the plausibility of a miracle even if one grants that they are possible?
In the specific case if the resurrection I think the historical evidence makes alternative hypothesis very unlikely and strongly confirms the resurrection hypothesis.
But ignore that first paragraph! Because I think your issue is methodological. It could be that in the specific case of the resurrection (Let's say) the historical evidence isn't strong enough. But, ofcourse, it could be that there *could* be evidence for an event with makes it more probable than the alternatives. This is why I think the core of your question is "How can one assess the plausibility of a miracle even if one grants that they are possible?".
I strongly recommend the links I posted in #28.
| Religion » The motive for Christianity » 8/10/2018 1:07 am |
- Callum
- Replies: 45
-
RomanJoe wrote:Callum wrote:RomanJoe wrote:
I'm becoming cautious of reading books that investigate the history of early Christianity and its origin. It seems like an area that is just rife with unconscious bias, everyone having a theological axe to grind. I'm looking to get back into reading more but I'm afraid I'm becoming too skeptical of the research itself because, unfortunately, it is conducted by fallible human beings.You should be clear on what the issue(s) could be. Methodological? Historical evidence and miracles? The background presuppositions each person brings to the investigation? These all would be grouped away from a more historic investigation that deals with the data.
It's the background presuppositions.
These are (almost) entirely philosophical. The resurrection of Jesus will rest on some plausibility for the existence of God, that miracles are possible (or Have happened) and that Jesus specifically would plausibly be chosen to be resurrected. These seem to me to be the main issues (with each being multifaceted).
Outside of that your comments seem to raise the question of whether historical evidence, in principle, could support a miracle. From my perspective, I think the answer is decisively yes.
| Religion » The motive for Christianity » 8/09/2018 4:35 pm |
- Callum
- Replies: 45
-
RomanJoe wrote:Freakazoid wrote:RomanJoe wrote:
Just any reading that addresses whether or not we could rightly appeal to a miracle during our historical investigation of the origin of Christianity.I don't really have much to add beyond what others have said. Tim McGrew is excellent on miracles.
I'm becoming cautious of reading books that investigate the history of early Christianity and its origin. It seems like an area that is just rife with unconscious bias, everyone having a theological axe to grind. I'm looking to get back into reading more but I'm afraid I'm becoming too skeptical of the research itself because, unfortunately, it is conducted by fallible human beings.
You should be clear on what the issue(s) could be. Methodological? Historical evidence and miracles? The background presuppositions each person brings to the investigation? These all would be grouped away from a more historic investigation that deals with the data.
| Religion » The motive for Christianity » 8/08/2018 11:12 am |
- Callum
- Replies: 45
-
RomanJoe wrote:Freakazoid wrote:RomanJoe wrote:
Any reading suggestions? I've read some of Bart Ehrman's work, William Lane Craig's (excluding his massive tome), Gary Habermas' and Michael Licona's. Dale Allison seems promising.
Is there any topic in particular that you are interested in or are you looking for a broad survey?
Just any reading that addresses whether or not we could rightly appeal to a miracle during our historical investigation of the origin of Christianity.
This a question of the methodology of history, it's relationship (if any with miracles) and other philosophy of history questions.
This is a good start;
| Religion » The motive for Christianity » 8/06/2018 3:31 pm |
- Callum
- Replies: 45
-
My reading recommendations would be NT Wright's book on the resurrection and Bauckham's Jesus and the eye witnesses.
I would highly, highly recommend Colin Hemer's book on Acts. Luke is my a major reason I am a Christian. The book is out of print so Amazon second hand is best bet. If not get the first volume of Craig Keener's commentary on Acts.
Very interesting work has been done by Lydia Mcgrew with her book on undesigned coincidences. She is, independently, producing peer reviewed philosophy paper's (probabilistic specifically) on the idea of undesigned coincidences confirming accuracy of a source.
Just a quick point on Acts. If you don't want to get all the books Keener has a good set of lectures on YouTube and both he and Tim Mcgrew have good presentations on Acts over at the YouTube Channel Apologetics Academy
| Theoretical Philosophy » Disembodied soul in Aquinas: a substance? » 6/08/2018 5:34 am |
- Callum
- Replies: 23
-
ficino wrote:
@ Greg and Miguel, thank you for the pointers about survivalism vs. corruptionism, and Miguel, thank you for the references. I read Feser's paper; it explains many issues. I shall see whether I can find some of Klima's.
How did you get hold of Feser's new paper?!
| Theoretical Philosophy » Is life meaningless without an afterlife? » 5/15/2018 1:00 am |
- Callum
- Replies: 14
-
I'm on the fence. On one hand I think he correct about *ultimate* meaning for sure. I don't think that exhausts all type of meaning. Craig stresses ultimate meaning, humanists stress another. Both have some truth to them.
| Theoretical Philosophy » Theism and Tribalism » 5/12/2018 3:44 am |
- Callum
- Replies: 15
-
Jeremy Taylor wrote:
I certainly agree that Christian apologists often don't give enough consideration of other religions, and seem to too easily reach the position that Christianity is the best explanation. For example, huge weight is often put on historical miracles, without proper explanation why this is so important (and dismissal of miracles in other faiths). Caricatures of other faiths are still distressingly common (Buddhism is nihilistic, Islam is portrays God as simply bloodthirsty and lacking all mercy, and so on.).
I think that may be the case for Hinduism, but not so for Islam. Take David Wood for example, his main outreach seems to stem from criticism of Islam. As a general movement, perhaps the point sticks to Christian apologists in general, but there are a handful who are getting elbow deep.
I'm a little lost about a lack of explanation on the importance of historical miracles, though. The resurrection is a necessary condition for the truth of Christianity. It's pretty much the main argument for its veracity!
A quick comment on dismissing miracle reports in other faiths. Again, as a general trend among Christian apologists I have no gripe (even inclined to agree) but among those that contribute to the literature there is ample openness to the possibility of miracles in other religions (I'm thinking here of people like Tim Mcgrew who has claimed this is the majority view)
| Theoretical Philosophy » Rational Animals » 4/24/2018 4:00 pm |
- Callum
- Replies: 22
-
See what (if anything) Chomsky has to say about Dolphins in his book Why Only Us: evolution and language
| Theoretical Philosophy » Rational Animals » 4/24/2018 1:59 am |
- Callum
- Replies: 22
-
I've mentioned him before, but Daniel De Haan's work would be a good place to start. I went to a talk by him on neuroscience and the soul where he briefly described just how much Albert the great and Aquinas gave to animals and That, though the terminology will be different, current headlines on dolphins, elephants, higher apes etc can all be described in the sense Aquinas did.
Here's the kicker, I used his Cambridge email and he didn't reply so I'm not sure he has much inclination for strangers!