Buxte is exactly right. The historian is methodologically agnostic. A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. One may believe that the former is indicative of the latter, but that cannot be asserted as fact, unless new evidence is brought to light, such as Jesus' body being discovered.

On the other hand, something like the Resurrection can be ruled out axiomatically if some form of positivistic materialism is true. Were it true, miracles are impossible and those events labeled as such are simply misunderstood physical processes like everything else.

I will say that for traditional Christians, the articles of faith (i.e. the items in the creeds) are divinely revealed and only received by grace. You cannot definitively establish them through the use of reason. Indeed, if that were true, then faith would be superfluous. However, merely because the Resurrection, for example, requires faith to believe in does not mean that it is unreasonable to do so, provided one believes in certain preambles to the faith, such as the existence of God (which the creeds assume). So I don't think faith in the Resurrection is "bullshit" if those preambles are true. Debating the merits of the Resurrection's occurrence before establishing the existence and nature of God is to put the cart before the horse.

Define mystical experience for me. — Buxtebuddha

A form of altered state of consciousness that is ineffable and involves gaining insight into the deeper nature of reality.

The extent that some people will go to in an attempt to justify something so patently absurd is fascinating. — Sapientia

I honestly don't see anything patently absurd.

The point is, mere testimony is woefully insufficient when it comes to supernatural claims. — Sapientia

What would be sufficient then?

And it certainly isn't credible to grant something the status of being factual or historical on that basis alone. — Sapientia

Right, it's based on historical documents. I grant that Alexander went to India and fought there, etc. based on very few historical references - much fewer than when it comes to the death and resurrection of Christ. So why don't you go up in arms about granting factual or historical status to Alexander's conquests, but you're so upset when it comes to Jesus? The Bible does say that the Cross will be a scandal for unbelievers.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. — Sapientia

Sure, and I think we do have extraordinary evidence.

What's interesting is that none of this is necessary. You don't have to bite the bullet and opt for the weaker position entailed by organised religion. You can be a Christian, that is, a follower of Christ's teachings, without adopting this untenable literal interpretation of scripture. — Sapientia

St. Paul said that if Christ has not Risen, then the faith is in vain. He was right about that.

Buxte is exactly right. The historian is methodologically agnostic. A lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. — Thorongil

This isn't true. A historian is in the business of verifying his facts. He doesn't simply just recite what he's told, unless he simply wishes to document what he's told regardless of veracity. If I were reading the history of the Vietnam war, for example, I would expect the historian to have sorted out the facts from the fiction and tried to establish some degree of credibility. Academic histories are replete with footnotes and references supportive of their claims.

No historian would report that there were purple elephants walking around Peoria without support, meaning precisely that the lack of evidence is evidence of absence.

On the other hand, something like the Resurrection can be ruled out axiomatically if some form of positivistic materialism is true. Were it true, miracles are impossible and those events labeled as such are simply misunderstood physical processes like everything else. — Thorongil

This makes it appear that there are simply materialistic axioms and religious axioms that are incompatible, with neither being more valid than the other, and so it should be expected that materialists will reject the Resurrection as a matter of faith, just as Christians accept it as a matter of faith. It paints a picture of two competing faiths, with the materialists unjustifiably smug in the truthfulness of their faith, but, if better enlightened, would realize they are no better or worse than the religious. I think this accurately sets forth the repercussions of your position. If not, correct me.

The truth though is that my rejection of the Resurrection isn't because it's axiomatically disallowed under my materialistic faith, but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book. That is, should I see the dead rise from time to time or should that be consistent with anything else I've seen or heard of, then I'd be more likely to accept the Resurrection, despite my materialistic belief system. I reject the Resurrection for the same reason I reject accounts of ghosts, not because ghosts are materialistically impossible, but because no one seems to be able to show me one.

And in truth, I'm not actually a materialist, but I fully allow for a spiritual realm, but I don't believe that offers me any additional room for a belief in the Resurrection. Why would it?

The truth is that most believe in the Resurrection because their parents did or it was a pervasive cultural belief. The belief is simply an adoption of the local legend, regardless of how firmly the believers wish to argue that it's not. On the other hand, my belief that it snowed last night would be my belief regardless of who my parents were, and that belief seems to be cross-cultural, with people of all beliefs and stripes navigating the snow in the same way.

You have an answer for everything, don't you? — Sapientia

....ahem

The extent that some people will go to in an attempt to justify something so patently absurd is fascinating. — Sapientia

Says the man who has set himself up as the sole judge of what is patently absurd.

Sapientia says "What you say is patently absurd. QED."

Then Google is wrong? — Sapientia

Your meaning is rarely clear, and that's a problem. If you're saying that, according to Catholicism, it's metaphorical, rather than literal, then I think you're mistaken, since the sources where I've got my information about Catholicism from state otherwise. Moreover, T. Clark's wife is Catholic, and she thinks likewise.

And what I was actually requesting was an explanation regarding your comments about logical necessity and a priori truth, which you haven't given. I might just resign myself to my suspicion that you were talking rubbish, whilst, in the same breath, accusing us of being silly. — Sapientia

Ah, I see the confusion. Generally, when someone says that they are doing a literal interpretation of the Bible, it goes further than saying that some of the mysteries aren't metaphorical and symbolic. Everything is literally to be taken to the word. If the Apocalypse state that during the breaking of the 3rd Seal all angels will be dancing laciviously La Macarena, then you can expect that to happen.

Catholicism doesn't teach a literal interpretation of the texts in this way. I was told in Catechism that the Apocalypse and the Rapture was much more symbolic than anything factual. At the same time, the priest would be unmovable on certain other issues. Mary was a virgin. He felt almost insulted at the question. Sacraments are holy and mystical. Transubstantiation is a thing. Resurrection did happen.

Obviously, its very akward having to naviguate this system of belief. Once you start admitting some of it is symbolic, why not just say it all is? Why is it so important that Mary really was a virgin if it doesn't really matter if only 400 000 people will or won't be selected for admittance into Heaven? That is why, I think, so many other Christian sects decide to go the literalist way. That way, you don't have to deal with figuring which part of the text are the important ones, because it's all important, all the time.

Maybe for something like "Hitler had pancakes on his birthday". Not for "Jesus died, was resurrected, and then ascended to heaven." — Michael

This isn't true. A historian is in the business of verifying his facts. He doesn't simply just recite what he's told, unless he simply wishes to document what he's told regardless of veracity. If I were reading the history of the Vietnam war, for example, I would expect the historian to have sorted out the facts from the fiction and tried to establish some degree of credibility. Academic histories are replete with footnotes and references supportive of their claims.

No historian would report that there were purple elephants walking around Peoria without support, meaning precisely that the lack of evidence is evidence of absence. — Hanover

I'm glad I'm not the only one who can see sense.

The truth though is that my rejection of the Resurrection isn't because it's axiomatically disallowed under my materialistic faith, but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book. That is, should I see the dead rise from time to time or should that be consistent with anything else I've seen or heard of, then I'd be more likely to accept the Resurrection, despite my materialistic belief system. I reject the Resurrection for the same reason I reject accounts of ghosts, not because ghosts are materialistically impossible, but because no one seems to be able to show me one.

And in truth, I'm not actually a materialist, but I fully allow for a spiritual realm, but I don't believe that offers me any additional room for a belief in the Resurrection. Why would it?

The truth is that most believe in the Resurrection because their parents did or it was a pervasive cultural belief. The belief is simply an adoption of the local legend, regardless of how firmly the believers wish to argue that it's not. On the other hand, my belief that it snowed last night would be my belief regardless of who my parents were, and that belief seems to be cross-cultural, with people of all beliefs and stripes navigating the snow in the same way. — Hanover

Yes, I reject it for the same reasons, and I also made the point that materialism isn't as relevant as Thorongil, Noble Dust, and perhaps others, think it is. My views certainly have much in common with materialism, but whether that's enough to make me a materialist is arguable. Whether I'm a materialist, a dualist, or undecided, my views about transubstantiation would be no different.

Says the man who has set himself up as the sole judge of what is patently absurd.

Sapientia says "What you say is patently absurd. QED." — T Clark

You're right. There's nothing patently absurd about bread and wine magically transforming into the body and blood of a man who died around 2000 years ago, after some special ceremony, leaving no trace that this magical transformation has taken place. Almost as if it had not taken place at all, and is in fact just something that's made up. And there's nothing patently absurd about a man who, after being put to death, rose up and ascended to heaven. There's testimony, so it must be true. How silly of me.

If this was anything other than religion, I doubt you'd all be so defensive and so prone to folly.

The truth though is that my rejection of the Resurrection isn't because it's axiomatically disallowed under my materialistic faith, but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book. — Hanover

It is supposed to be inconsistent, it is a miracle. If it wasn't inconsistent, how could it possibly be a miracle?

That is, should I see the dead rise from time to time or should that be consistent with anything else I've seen or heard of, then I'd be more likely to accept the Resurrection, despite my materialistic belief system. — Hanover

Well right, if you were used to it, then the Resurrection would be nothing special, as it claims to be. Precisely because you don't see people rise from the dead from time to time, it shows that the Resurrection of Christ was a unique event in history. Indeed, it is the very axis of history. All of history separates in before and after Christ.

If this was anything other than religion, I doubt you'd all be so defensive and so prone to folly. — Sapientia

I think the same about you. If we were discussing Alexander the Great and his conquests (including details about the tactics he used in specific battles, etc.), of which we know based on the testimony of people and virtually nothing else, I'm sure you'd not be questioning the historical validity of those documents nor the historicity of the events. But when it comes to religion, you do question it, because you're set against religion on an a priori basis.

I think the same about you. If we were discussing Alexander the Great and his conquests (including details about the tactics he used in specific battles, etc.), of which we know based on the testimony of people and virtually nothing else, I'm sure you'd not be questioning the historical validity of those documents. But when it comes to religion, you do question it, because you're set against religion on an a priori basis. — Agustino

They're not analogous. Did you read what I said about supernatural claims?

They're not analogous. Did you read what I said about supernatural claims? — Sapientia

Yes, I've asked you a question about that. Did you answer it?

Yes, I've asked you a question about that. Did you answer it? — Agustino

No, I haven't gotten around to that yet. As of this moment, I have 11 notifications pending. Bit of a backlog going on here. You'll just have to wait.

In relation to the mystic this and mysticism that discussion, and in the vein of Deep Thoughts by Jack Handy:

Is anyone attracted to the aesthetic truths of the song “Into the Mystic” by Van Morison then a person whose underlying aesthetic and related beliefs are mentally disordered, aka insane? Or is one’s likening of this song’s theme only a brain fart? Wait, maybe even something more substantial, such as a brain defecation. Conversely, would liking of this song be due to the biologically determined, evolutionary functionality of understanding and relating to propositional attitudes expressed by statements such as, “we were born before the wind”?

Besides, what are the psychotic rants of bona fide mystics such as William Blake’s “Auguries of Innocence” supposed to mean anyway? And I quote, “To see a world in a grain of sand, and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand, and eternity in an hour …”. A more irrational convulsion of category errors can hardly be imagined! It’s like, what?

With all due sobriety and sincerity though, myself, I prefer to admire the Mystery Men. They are mysterious too, yes, but I, personally, find it much easier to relate to most of them—including that guy played by Tom Waits who as a weird scientist only manufactures weapons of mass disruption. (to be used strictly for good, of course)

To those who quite understandably don’t know, Mystery Men is the single greatest superhero movie of all time, imo. This being a self-evident fact, QED.

Let's not pretend the four Gospels are a historical record. They are narratives written by highly educated Greek Christians about uneducated (except Jesus) and illiterate Aramaic-speaking Jews, 35-70 years after the fact. They are full of discrepancies and contradictions, including the accounts of the resurrection. There are zero contemporary secular sources that affirm or even mention the event.

The amount deference given to "mystical experiences" in this argument is baffling. If the inability to disprove something claimed to be ineffable is grounds for respecting it, I guess we'd have no right to try talking a suicide bomber out of his belief in a glorious martyrs afterlife.

A historian is in the business of verifying his facts. — Hanover

I don't deny this. I never intended to describe the historian's craft in its totality.

and so it should be expected that materialists will reject the Resurrection as a matter of faith, just as Christians accept it as a matter of faith. — Hanover

No. I have no idea why you would read this into my words. If materialism is true, the Resurrection is false. There is no faith required to reject the Resurrection in that case.

but it's that because a Resurrection is entirely inconsistent with my worldly experience as well as the worldly experience of every person I've ever known or heard from, save a few isolated ancient accounts from a handful of people and documented in a faith based book — Hanover

Here your disbelief rests on a probability, which means your disbelief does not rest on a demonstrated fact. Your position is thus similar to what I said: "a lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. One may believe that the former is indicative of the latter, but that cannot be asserted as fact, unless new evidence is brought to light...."

The truth is that most believe in the Resurrection because their parents did or it was a pervasive cultural belief. — Hanover

So what? It isn't refuted due to this fact. If it happened and only one person in the world believed it, he would be right.

The belief is simply an adoption of the local legend, regardless of how firmly the believers wish to argue that it's not. — Hanover

Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.

Let's not pretend the four Gospels are a historical record. — ProbablyTrue

But they are. No scholar denies this. They may contain more than mere historical record, but that doesn't mean they don't record history.

If this was anything other than religion, I doubt you'd all be so defensive and so prone to folly. — Sapientia

I'm not Christian or religious in any conventional way. I have no vested interest in any specific issues being discussed here. What I am interested in is the metaphysical issue. My position has been stated and restated numerous times. I'd rather not do it again.

Patently means without doubt. Absurd means ridiculous. You think the idea of transubstantiation is ridiculous without any doubt. I disagree.

You know what I mean Thoron. Yes, technically they are records found in history that claim to record things that happened in a period of history.
They are not a dispassionate account of things that took place. And they are full of discrepancies.

It is supposed to be inconsistent, it is a miracle. If it wasn't inconsistent, how could it possibly be a miracle? — Agustino

This is an equivocation fallacy. It is tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the normal scientific order of things. It is not tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the common consensus experience.

That is, of course miracles are miraculous (definition #1: inconsistent with science), but they need not be rare (definition #2: inconsistent with common experience). In fact, I am open to miracles occuring, but that hardly means anything can occur.

Hypothetically, if miracles of a certain type occurred daily, I would find it dubious if miracles of another sort were alleged, especially if they were significantly at variance from the other ones.

All of history separates in before and after Christ. — Agustino

It's comments like these that broadcast your limited and myopic perspective. To the extent you simply wish to proclaim your fidelity to your faith as a loyal Christian soldier, I guess have it, but to the extent you're really ignorant of the billions who never considered Jesus anything other than another man, it's hard to to consider your views having any validity outside those sharing your limited field of vision.

It's comments like these that broadcast your limited and myopic perspective. To the extent you simply wish to proclaim your fidelity to your faith as a loyal Christian soldier, I guess have it, but to the extent you're really ignorant of the billions who never considered Jesus anything other than another man, it's hard to to consider your views having any validity outside those sharing your limited field of vision. — Hanover

With a few words changed, this is exactly the argument I've been making about your and Sapientia's beliefs.

This is an equivocation fallacy. It is tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the normal scientific order of things. It is not tautological that a miracle be inconsistent with the common consensus experience. — Hanover

Hmm, I see where you're coming from. However, I don't think we could even have, in principle, the scenario you're suggesting above. I mean that sort of presupposes that we could have a situation where something occurs commonly in experience, but yet is not incorporated in our scientific theories. So what would that look like? We have a law, like the law of gravity, and people sometimes levitate? Wouldn't that be incorporated in the scientific law then? Surely the law would have a statistical element then, much like quantum mechanics. For the most part, things fall down to earth - but sometimes there is a fluctuation in the gravitational field, and they float.

So the problem with your whole scenario, more succinctly, is that we had the notion of miracles before we ever developed the notion of a scientific order of things - before we knew of laws of nature. So how did that notion of miracles develop? Clearly, it couldn't have developed to refer to things which were contrary to the laws of nature - what it referred to were things that were deemed to be impossible according to common experience.

but to the extent you're really ignorant of the billions who never considered Jesus anything other than another man — Hanover

I fully acknowledge that there were billions of people who didn't/don't consider Jesus to be the Son of God.

What I meant by history being divided into before Christ and after Christ, was simply a remark that pretty much everywhere we talk of 100 BC and 2000 AD, and where is the separation point? It's very close to the birth of Jesus. So we have divided our history into before Christ and after Christ. Clearly Christ's influence, regardless of what you believe about Him, has been tremendous.

Which makes "miracles" nothing more than unexpected events, whether by that's by present scientific theory or common experience. None of them were ever "impossible (shown clearly false, if one has happened)," only insisted to be "impossible" by humans interested in ensuring people thought the event in question couldn't happen.

None of them were ever "impossible (shown clearly false, if one has happened)," only insisted to be "impossible" by humans interested in ensuring people thought the event in question couldn't happen. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Agreed.

With a few words changed, this is exactly the argument I've been making about your and Sapientia's beliefs. — T Clark

I know it is, and it's an invalid attempt to declare all viewpoints relativistic and equally valid. My belief in evolution is founded upon firmer epistimological foundations than are creationists' beliefs or what a South American tribe might think. When I say transubstantiation doesn't occur, I mean it just like I mean there are no unicorns, bigfoot, and that the earth's not flat.

Hmm, I see where you're coming from. However, I don't think we could even have, in principle, the scenario you're suggesting above. I mean that sort of presupposes that we could have a situation where something occurs commonly in experience, but yet is not incorporated in our scientific theories. So what would that look like? We have a law, like the law of gravity, and people sometimes levitate? Wouldn't that be incorporated in the scientific law then? — Agustino

I suppose it'd be Moses' world, where miracles were commonplace and not alarming. Moses didn't attempt to provide a mundane, non-miraculous explanation for those events because God spoke directly to him and he knew they were acts of divine intervention.

You assume miracles must be deciphered only because God stopped explicitely talking to us a few thousand years ago for some reason.

What I meant by history being divided into before Christ and after Christ, was simply a remark that pretty much everywhere we talk of 100 BC and 2000 AD, and where is the separation point? I — Agustino

BCE (as opposed to BC) is typically used to refer to "before the common era," or, as we used to say back in Hebrew school, before the common error.

Anyway, the Jewish year is 5728, Hindu 3102, Islam 1438, and Chinese year is Rooster if my placemat was correct.

I guess I don't see mystical experiences as so out of the ordinary. I don't think they are mysterious at all. I wasn't really thinking about Catholics when I talked about billions of people, I was thinking of Eastern religions and philosophies, although you are probably right to include Western religions too. I have my own idea what "mystical" means. I haven't studied comparative religion much, so maybe what I am talking about is not what others usually think of as mystical. — T Clark

There is a difference between a mystical experience and mysticism; in some Dervish Sufi orders, for instance, the practice of whirling is intended to achieve this unison with God yet possible only for a select few and only followed by this "annihilation of the self" after years of practice. They are aware that not everyone is capable of achieving this experience that is individual or distinct in its transcendental reality. In my opinion, this exemplifies that there really is no possibility of such an experience, but rather it is pathologically distinct framed within a religious exegesis in order to broadly make sense of whatever that person is experiencing. The mysticism itself, the suggestion of attaining a unison with God, the annihilation of the self, the asceticism etc is entirely sensible but I am of the opinion - except for the existence of God - that it is not meant to be taken literally; like QM and CM, it is meant to help us better understand physical reality. For people to purport simultaneity between the spiritual realm and the material world - i.e. something like 'psychics' who can reach beyond this world or that Scho. cat both exists and doesn't exist - is, in my opinion a type of pathology. It is taking lies and our imagination to a new level.

You cannot know God. This is why - for centuries - people rely on idols or turning men like Jesus into a god. Taking concepts like that literally is a cognitive issue but framed into a dogmatic system. To me, there are really only two types of people, those that believe in God and those that don't. Everything else is just trying to make sense of this.

For people to purport simultaneity between the spiritual realm and the material world - i.e. something like 'psychics' who can reach beyond this world or that Scho. cat both exists and doesn't exist - is, in my opinion a type of pathology. It is taking lies and our imagination to a new level. — TimeLine

I have been trying to make myself clear on this thread for a couple of days and have made no headway. I think that's for several reasons - 1) It's a hard thing to get across. The same words mean different things to different people. 2) I've been trying for a long time to figure out a way that I find satisfactory to describe the experiences and ideas I am talking about. I haven't been able to so far. It's probably silly of me to think that if I can just figure out to say it right everyone will see what I'm talking about. 3) The ideas are probably alien to the way people think about the world 4) I think the fact that you talk about the ideas I'm trying to get across as a type of psychopathology and Sapientia calls them "patently absurd" indicates intellectual rigidity on your parts.

I have been trying to make myself clear on this thread for a couple of days and have made no headway. I think that's for several reasons - 1) It's a hard thing to get across. The same words mean different things to different people. 2) I've been trying for a long time to figure out a way that I find satisfactory to describe the experiences and ideas I am talking about. I haven't been able to so far. It's probably silly of me to think that if I can just figure out to say it right everyone will see what I'm talking about. 3) The ideas are probably alien to the way people think about the world 4) I think the fact that you talk about the ideas I'm trying to get across as a type of psychopathology and Sapientia calls them "patently absurd" indicates intellectual rigidity on your parts. — T Clark

You have created the idea of 3) when you are having difficulties articulating your beliefs probably because you yourself have not yet understood it well enough. Whatever the case is, my argument is not about your beliefs and what you say makes sense and parallel to some degree with me as I myself subscribe to the belief in the interconnectedness of all things in similar vein to Spinoza. I do agree, however, with 1) as how things are interpreted is dependent on a number of factors. Take an Epicurean approach and focus on addressing them. If I say I believe in God to a Christian, it may be interpreted to be the trinity; I have to clarify further and so I say that my belief is more aligned with the monotheistic God of Judaism or Islam, but then it may be assumed that I am Jewish or Muslim, so again further still I say that I do not follow a religion nor believe in an anthropomorphic God etc etc. I noticed that some serious advocates of atheism are really just anti-Catholics because they had some bad experiences personally.

As for 4) and my intellectual rigidity, I am sorry that you feel that way and indeed we have different views, but my intention is not to demean your beliefs at all but rather to call out a concern I have that suggestions of some supernatural plane of existence simultaneously exists and is accessible somehow. If reality is shared - if everything is interconnected - and if only one person has a mystical experience, that is verification that mystical experiences themselves are individual and therefore pathological because such experiences are not real.

You have mad people like Madam Blavatsky plagiarising from Hinduism and Gnosticism and then wrap it all up by pretending it is philosophical, creating Theosophy where she believes that the devil is god and that Aryans and Atlantis actually exist, influencing people who end up influencing Hitler who end up killing millions of Jews, Romas, persons with a disability etc. There needs to be a line drawn between fantasy and reality.

It is more dangerous then simply some astrologist telling a gullible minded moron that they are a Capricorn and next week they will meet the man of their dreams or scientologists talking about having you purified and I don't know whatever heck they do. I really need you to think about 4) again, please.