insanecarbonbasedlif's Journal: [Religion] Thoughts on readings (pt. 6)

Well, I finished Carl Sagan's book, and there's not a lot of commentary on religion in the latter half of the book, so I won't comment on it except to say that the book is very enlightening, insightful, and inspirational.

On to the "religion" referenced in the subject line, I'm currently reading Simply Christian: why Christianity makes sense by N.T. Wright (HarperOne, 2006, 1st ed.). I do appreciate some of what he has to say, but I can't say that he's making good cases for all his points, especially on the matters that are at the crux of the issue for me. As an example, on the question of Jesus and miracles, Wright makes this comment:

The remaking of God's people was at the heart, too, of his remarkable healings. There is no doubt, historically, that he possessed healing powers; that was why he attracted not only crowds but also accusations of being in league with the devil. (p.101)

For me, there's two problems with that statement.

First, many people, even in the modern world, attract many followers and accusations for "performing healings" (The fact that every seriously investigated or well documented case shows no sign of anything miraculous, and often shows the "healer" to be a charlatan, is also, in my opinion, relavent). The fact of crowds, and even antagonistic believers (i.e. he did it, but he used EVIL to do it!), does nothing to prove the veracity of the claims of healing.

Secondly, the only testimony we have of all three things (healings, crowds, accusers) are four documents written 40 years after the claimed events are purported to happen, and then later commentary on those four books. Not exactly something that deserves the weight of the words "there is no doubt, historically". There's a whole world of extraordinary claims made in ancient texts that we dismiss as non-historical, and unless there's something I'm missing, this claim has no more substantiation that the others.

A clarification is in order here, as well. I'm not saying that people can't believe that Jesus did healings. I'm just saying that it is entirely a matter of faith, and there are no "doubtless historical facts" to base that faith on.

Historical evidence

[Ethelred Unraed]

Secondly, the only testimony we have of all three things (healings, crowds, accusers) are four documents written 40 years after the claimed events are purported to happen

By the standards of that era, less than 40 years after the events is actually extremely good (and you're ignoring oral tradition, which is historically also quite important). Consider that outside the Bible, Pontius Pilate is barely mentioned, even though he was a regional governor and hardly someone obscure.

In our modern age we're so

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

I would also add that the motive for everything Jesus did was to carry out the will of the Father, and in the case of the healings, this facet of the will had to do with establishing credentials as the Messiah.

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

By the standards of that era, less than 40 years after the events is actually extremely good (and you're ignoring oral tradition, which is historically also quite important).

It may very well be good by the standards of 100 A.D., but considering that we have seen many examples of tremendous claims written in ancient times and then deconstructed by historians as exaggerations and fabrication, I don't think it can count as doubtless evidence. The fact is, as well, that often critical perspectives are used to

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

claims

There's the rub, I think. You seem to be approaching this from a reductionist point of view.

FWIW maybe try expanding your horizons in your reading a bit and read the likes of Freeman Dyson [wikipedia.org] as a good example of a scientist who strongly disagrees with reductionism. Holistic viewpoints might lead you to different conclusions, and intuition can be just as important as merely searching for raw evidence (which is lacking for that time period anyway).

The other element of this is that the truth contai

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

There's the rub, I think. You seem to be approaching this from a reductionist point of view.

I would consider that to be a problem if I was actually rejecting phenomenon in order to hold on to my viewpoint (which, if I have a huge blindspot, is possible, and I'm doing my best to find anything like that), or I was finding a lot of inexplicable things from my current perspective. The fact of the matter is that reductionism (not greedy reductionism) is fundamentally the most reliable way that I have seen to lea

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

all science seeks to determine causal relationships, and the simplest accurate explanation for things.

That isn't exactly true. Reductionism is one way of analyzing a problem. It is hardly the only way or even always the best way.

You would, I bet, agree that you love your wife. Explaining that solely in terms of reductionism hardly seems to do the concept justice.

Which is why I'm concerned that you are in fact slipping into greedy reductionism. ;-) Healthy skepticism is fine, but there comes a point

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

That isn't exactly true. Reductionism is one way of analyzing a problem. It is hardly the only way or even always the best way.

This points to a more fundamental question - what is "knowing", and how do we "know"? For what it's worth, I'm very open to the idea that there are other ways of knowing than science, but I haven't found anything compelling to me in that arena. So, turning back to your thoughts above, I have to turn it around. You must admit that science is the most consistent, reliable, and actiona

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

This points to a more fundamental question - what is "knowing", and how do we "know"?

There are different levels of knowledge and different kinds of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is one sort, but hardly the only one. To take the example of your spouse again, you "know" you love your wife, without subjecting her to control experiments. You "know" you like a certain flavor of ice cream. (Or maybe you don't like ice cream at all.) And so on.

So, for the sake of my own benefit, I don't deny that there m

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

There are different levels of knowledge and different kinds of knowledge. Scientific knowledge is one sort, but hardly the only one. To take the example of your spouse again, you "know" you love your wife, without subjecting her to control experiments. You "know" you like a certain flavor of ice cream. (Or maybe you don't like ice cream at all.) And so on.

This is a bit of a non sequitar. I don't need to understand all the principles of friction, combustion, materials stress, and chemistry to know tha

Re:

[Ethelred Unraed]

I don't need to understand all the principles of friction, combustion, materials stress, and chemistry to know that my car is working, and working well. I don't even need to do control experiments to decide that I think it's a good brand of car.

You do so largely, perhaps even mainly on intuition, which is what I'm getting at.

And to be honest, scientists are subjecting relationships and emotions to control experiments, and, in my opinion tellingly, are finding that the naturalistic hypotheses are alwa

Re:

[insanecarbonbasedlif]

Whoa whoa whoa. "Naturalistic hypotheses are always held up"?

Yeah - there's yet to be an experiment about neurology or personality that shows evidence of something lacking in a fully material model of the mind. If I'm wrong, please let me know. I am insatiably curious about that very question.

Where has science ever said why we are here? It talks about mechanisms, not morals.

Heh. Well, read what I said again, and then think about how I might answer questions like, "What do you want to do with your life?" and