iwpoe wrote:

Am I incorrect to remember Bill saying that he personally grounds his faith in religious experience? I cannot place the memory.

You're absolutely correct. He holds Christianity both as a properly basic belief and also holds that the evidence is sufficient for belief in Christian particularism ("Mere Christianity").

Scott wrote:

Alexander wrote:

What surprised me was the strength of the conclusion you took from your original argument - that historical evidence for miracle claims could be put aside when considering the truth of Christianity.

His conclusion was specifically about the truth of Christian particularism, not about the truth of Christianity full stop. 

I like Alexander assumed Christian particularism was, essentially, the claim that Christianity alone was true, full stop: it was not readily distinguished as meaning anything else in my protestant background.

John West wrote:

All else being equal, would you consider the “probabilistic, historical evidence” confirmatory of Christianity sufficient to hold that Christianity and only Christianity is correct?

(Emphasis on and only Christianity, with as a way of salvation implied, especially if you want to focus specifically on the conclusion in John's third possible response. That bit, as we all now know, is the "particularism" at issue.)

Last edited by Scott (7/16/2015 12:36 pm)

I hope it's all right if I hop in here even though the question is addressed to John. (I won't be home for most of the rest of the day, so if I don't post this now it won't get posted until at least tomorrow afternoon, and it seems important.)

iwpoe wrote:

John, I hope this doesn't go too far afield, but is it even right to say that confirmation of just the resurrection is sufficient to confirm Christianity *full stop*? Why wouldn't it merely confirm that Christ was himself paranormal in some respect or some other limited aspect of the complex that is the tradition? Wouldn't you need additional considerations to confirm the rest?

Of course, and that's part of the point. In fact, it's entirely possible to think the Resurrection was a literal, historical event that nevertheless doesn't support anything like the whole of Christianity -- even the belief that Jesus Himself was in any way "paranormal," let alone the sole Way of salvation (or indeed any such Way).

That's exactly why John is focusing on the specific claim of Christian particularism. His very question expressly assumes that one has accepted the Resurrection as a real paranormal event on the basis of historical evidence and probabilities, and he's suggesting that drawing (um) "Christianly particularist" conclusions from that belief may be making too much stew from one oyster.

Last edited by Scott (7/16/2015 1:23 pm)

You can also still think he's the only way but maintain that other traditions get you to him in some respect.