mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/05/85)
In article <439@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> As an aside, it is very interesting to consider exactly what were >> the three great temptations of Christ -- which should warn us of our own >> fallibility as Christians and others living in these dangerous and unjust >> times. First, Christ was challenged to make bread of the rocks; but he >> replied "Man shall not live by bread alone, but by the word of God." >> That is, Jesus rejected materialism, which ignores spiritual needs. >> Secondly, as was just mentioned, Christ rejected proving himself by testing >> whether God would save him from self-destruction. And, finally, Christ >> was challenged to accept political power over the world, in return for >> dignifying what is evil; but he replied, "You shall honor and serve God >> alone." That is Jesus refused the political power of evil. >It's very interesting to consider that these are precisely the responses we >would expect a fraudulent miracleworker to use to explain why he won't >work a miracle right here and now to show you. Of course he'll be happy >to tell you of the miracles he worked when you weren't there.... Perhaps so, but this is more a comment on the tendency of frauds to co-opt the legitimate statements of others. Jesus did go on to do many miracles; to light up this episode as representing excuses is to ignore its context. Not to mention, Mike, that you are claiming to be smarter than the devil. Charley WIngate umcp-cs!mangoe
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (04/05/85)
> Not to mention, Mike, that you are claiming to be smarter than the devil. > What's the devil's I.Q.? Place in order of "smartness" a) the devil, b) christians, c) non-christians. :-) The whole point here is the above quote assumes that the devil is smarter than humans, (or Mike at any rate). According to some christians the devil decided it was appropriate to reject God, therefore, if he is smarter than us, should we not be doing the same? :-) Padraig Houlahan.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/05/85)
In article <4539@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > In article <439@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >It's very interesting to consider that these are precisely the responses we > >would expect a fraudulent miracleworker to use to explain why he won't > >work a miracle right here and now to show you. Of course he'll be happy > >to tell you of the miracles he worked when you weren't there.... > > Perhaps so, but this is more a comment on the tendency of frauds to co-opt > the legitimate statements of others. Jesus did go on to do many miracles; > to light up this episode as representing excuses is to ignore its context. Uri Geller went on to convince quite a few people of his "powers" long after he was convincingly exposed by several authors (some of whom can reproduce his tricks.) Here is a scenario. I ask JC to show me a miracle NOW. He says that he doesn't produce performances on demand but that I should have seen miracle number 27 in the previous town. JC travels to the next town and reports that I was convinced by his miracle number 28, but that he's not going to do another miracle right now. Yes, frauds do co-opt statements of others. However, it would be odd for honest people to appear to use the same techniques it fraud would, as JC does. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/08/85)
In article <450@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >Here is a scenario. >I ask JC to show me a miracle NOW. He says that he doesn't produce >performances on demand but that I should have seen miracle number 27 in >the previous town. JC travels to the next town and reports that I was >convinced by his miracle number 28, but that he's not going to do another >miracle right now. >Yes, frauds do co-opt statements of others. However, it would be odd for >honest people to appear to use the same techniques it fraud would, as JC >does. Now wait a minute, take the thing in context!!!! It IS Satan he is talking to, after all. Why shouldn't God refuse to work miracles for Satan? Why shouldn't he justify it with scripture? Seems to me you are demanding to see miracles on demand. Isn't that just a wee bit presumptious? Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe Alleluia! Christ is risen. - The LORD is risen indeed. Alleluia!
root@trwatf.UUCP (Lord Frith) (04/08/85)
> Now wait a minute, take the thing in context!!!! It IS Satan he is talking > to, after all. Why shouldn't God refuse to work miracles for Satan? Clearly Satan is not impressed by miracles because he ALREADY knows God exists and knows what God can and cannot do. Similarly for God's son. Satan simply wants to sway Christ over to "the dark side." It's a test of character more than a test of power. -- UUCP: ...{decvax,ihnp4,allegra}!seismo!trwatf!root - Lord Frith ARPA: trwatf!root@SEISMO "And he made the stars, too, and the world is one of the stars"
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/09/85)
In article <4644@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > In article <450@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: > >I ask JC to show me a miracle NOW. He says that he doesn't produce > >performances on demand but that I should have seen miracle number 27 in > >the previous town. JC travels to the next town and reports that I was > >convinced by his miracle number 28, but that he's not going to do another > >miracle right now. > > >Yes, frauds do co-opt statements of others. However, it would be odd for > >honest people to appear to use the same techniques it fraud would, as JC > >does. > > Now wait a minute, take the thing in context!!!! It IS Satan he is talking > to, after all. Why shouldn't God refuse to work miracles for Satan? Why > shouldn't he justify it with scripture? Seems to me you are demanding to > see miracles on demand. Isn't that just a wee bit presumptious? No, JC is talking to me, and uses as his excuse his story of refusing to work miracles for Satan. "Why just the other day, Satan asked me to do just that" he says. Needless to say I am discomfited because he is implying I am like Satan to ask such a thing. And you're damn right I'm asking to see miracles on demand. I'd say the presumption is on the part of JC claiming to be a miracleworker. If I was wrong, my apologies would be sincere and I wouldn't need further evidence. However, I certainly wouldn't ask anyone to believe on less evidence than I insist on for myself. The way many apostles and the like must have. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/10/85)
In article <456@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >In article <4644@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >> Now wait a minute, take the thing in context!!!! It IS Satan he is talking >> to, after all. Why shouldn't God refuse to work miracles for Satan? Why >> shouldn't he justify it with scripture? Seems to me you are demanding to >> see miracles on demand. Isn't that just a wee bit presumptious? >No, JC is talking to me, and uses as his excuse his story of refusing to >work miracles for Satan. "Why just the other day, Satan asked me to do >just that" he says. Needless to say I am discomfited because he is >implying I am like Satan to ask such a thing. That's an odd interpretation, and one which I have never heard anyone posit. In the traditional intepretation, the meaning of the incident is that Jesus turns away from the temptation to use his powers to rule the world. This is cetainly a very real option, for Jesus, being Godhead, could simply override anything with his power. He has to choose not to. >And you're damn right I'm asking to see miracles on demand. I'd say the >presumption is on the part of JC claiming to be a miracleworker. If I >was wrong, my apologies would be sincere and I wouldn't need further >evidence. However, I certainly wouldn't ask anyone to believe on less >evidence than I insist on for myself. The way many apostles and the like >must have. Well, Jesus certainly is within his rights not to work miracles simply because people demand them. He has every right not to be treated as a laboratory specimen. I personally do not rely on the miracles to support my faith (except the important two: the incarnation and the resurrection). It's the testimony of one generation to the next that is ultimately the principle reason for belief, just as it is for any other historical notion. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/11/85)
In article <4681@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > In the traditional intepretation, the meaning of the incident is that Jesus > turns away from the temptation to use his powers to rule the world. This is > cetainly a very real option, for Jesus, being Godhead, could simply override > anything with his power. He has to choose not to. The fraudulent Godhead, who hasn't any powers to use to rule the world, must construct an excuse for why he doesn't do so. The best explanation is one that embarasses the questioners, and puts them on the defensive by comparing them to Satan. > Well, Jesus certainly is within his rights not to work miracles simply > because people demand them. He has every right not to be treated as a > laboratory specimen. Any fraud is within his rights not to work miracles simply because people demand them. But people will get suspicious unless you concoct plausible sounding excuses, and learn how to quiet hecklers. A real god might use these devices, but wouldn't need them. > I personally do not rely on the miracles to support my faith (except the > important two: the incarnation and the resurrection). It's the testimony of > one generation to the next that is ultimately the principle reason for > belief, just as it is for any other historical notion. It's too late to shut the barn door once the cow's loose. It is skepticism that is responsible for clearing away the worthless testimony of previous generations to allow new knowledge to emerge. (Mind you I'm not saying that all testimony is worthless. Some can be confirmed by first skeptically rejecting it and then arriving at the same conclusions.) -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
ix415@sdcc6.UUCP (Rick Frey) (04/12/85)
> No, JC is talking to me, and uses as his excuse his story of refusing to > work miracles for Satan. "Why just the other day, Satan asked me to do > just that" he says. Needless to say I am discomfited because he is > implying I am like Satan to ask such a thing. > > And you're damn right I'm asking to see miracles on demand. I'd say the > presumption is on the part of JC claiming to be a miracleworker. If I > was wrong, my apologies would be sincere and I wouldn't need further > evidence. However, I certainly wouldn't ask anyone to believe on less > evidence than I insist on for myself. The way many apostles and the like > must have. [Mike Huybensz] > There are two major problems with this idea. The first is that you as a person have the right to tell God how and when He will display Himself to you. Unfortunately, God has not given you this ability. The Bible says that God is revealed through creation, through having made us (Romans 1:16-18) and in the person of Jesus Christ (John 14:6-20 roughly) God has not offered you the ability to create your own method of coming to Him such that you can tell Him what to do and He'll be your little genie in a bottle to perform tricks at your command. If you object to this on the grounds that your intentions aren't to see the tricks, but to find out if God really exists, then keep reading. The second problem is a little more theoretical but hopefully it will make sense. The Bible says that "without faith it is impossible to please Him." (Hebrews 11:6) To make the point simply, if God revealed Himself to you such that there was no doubt, there would also be no faith. While you might scream that that is bogus justification, it's simply the way God set things up. Christ, after having appeared to Thomas said that Thomas was correct to believe that He was the Christ, but more blessed are they that believe without seeing. It isn't impossible. Thousands who had never seen Christ became believers all throughout the book of Acts and just look around today, obviously there's at least enough evidence to have kept Christianity alive, under consistent and scholarly attack, for almost 2000 years. The Bible says that all who honestly seek after God will find Him. The big question is how many people who claim to be really seeking after God are really seeking after *GOD* and not what they want to find. I'm not making implications in any directions. There are just as many phony Christian seekers as there are from other religions. But face to face confrontations with God, at your command, are not a luxury that God has offered you. Rick "For without faith it is impossible to please Him, for those who come to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him." Hebrews 11:6 (maybe 7 too)
root@topaz.ARPA (Root) (04/12/85)
I'm getting tired of this discussion. Before anyone else accuses Jesus of using excuses to cover up not being able to do miracles, please read the Biblical texts you are commenting on. The version of the temptation story which is presumably the earliest is the following "At once the Spirit made him go into the desert, where he stayed forty days, being tempted by Satan. Wild animals were there also, but angels came and helped him." (Mark 1:12-13) Note: no comment about miracles. The versions in Matthew and Luke give three actual temptations. They are: - turn this stone into bread - worship me (Satan) and I will give you power - throw yourself off the temple, and God will rescue you. (No motivation for this is stated. Presumably the idea is that this will prove that he is the Messiah.) Note that the earliest version doesn't mention miracles at all. Also note that in the ones that give the actual temptations, only one of the temptations would be a miracle that Jesus would work, and one of them wouldn't be a miracle at all. I think this shows that the story did not arise as an explanation as to why Jesus didn't always work miracles. Now, as for the times when Jesus actually did refuse to work miracles. Typically when Jesus didn't work miracles (e.g. Mk. 8:11-13, Mt. 16:1-4) ) he didn't give any excuse at all. I recall one place where the narrator says that Jesus didn't work any miracles in a particular place because they didn't have faith there. But if Jesus himself said something like that, I don't recall it. Indeed Jesus was very wary of claiming anything about himself. This is what has led many non-Christians to say that the whole business about being the Son of God was just a misinterpretation by his followers. There is better evidence for this than for the (apparently contradictory) criticism that Jesus was a charlatan. I have no objection to the original offhand remark that the temptations sounds like typical excuses of a charlatan. People are welcome to try to shed new and amusing light on old passages. However before having a long discussion on such an observation, I would appreciate it if contributors would look a bit more carefully.
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/14/85)
]The fraudulent Godhead, who hasn't any powers to use to rule the world, ]must construct an excuse for why he doesn't do so. The best explanation ]is one that embarasses the questioners, and puts them on the defensive by ]comparing them to Satan. Well, he certainly doesn't use that device anywhere in Matthew or Luke, which are the only gospels which count here. And besides, your first sentence rather baldly assumes that the purpose of incarnating God is so that he can come down and rule the world. Sounds to me like you're trying to impose your notion of what a god should act like on Jesus, and then saying he's an imposter because the shoe doesn't fit. The explanation is very curious indeed, being one I have never heard of before; it seems strange that it would not have seen lots of use throughout the history of christianity, especially considering the popularity of the passage. There are two other problems with the above passage. One is pointed out by root@topaz: only one of the three temptations involves working miracles. The other, more serious, is that one can postulate a different sort of god, and have an explanation which fits the event much better. If you had a god which did not want to rule the world, and a Satan which wanted "break" creation by tricking him into doing so, then the temptations are perfectly obvious. Now, I do not doubt that Mike is going to continue to prefer his explanation. But given that there are some inconsistencies surrounding his, it is immediately evident to me that the is some presupposition at work here: namely, that no one can work miracles. And I do think there are problems with Mike's interpretation, even taking a very critical approach to the story. I have never, ever heard anyone use the kind of justification for the failure of a miracle as Mike claims is happening here. For one thing, Jesus even compares his diciples to Satan! For another, the incident represents a fairly weak excuse, since Jesus is only refusing to perform miracles as tests of his power. The temptations are also never referred to by Jesus either; he certainly never uses the incident as an excuse later on. The incident's content is so highly allegorical anyway that its meaning isn't particularly affected by whether it actually happened or not. [Following quote from root@topaz:] >Now, as for the times when Jesus actually did refuse to work miracles. >Typically when Jesus didn't work miracles (e.g. Mk. 8:11-13, Mt. 16:1-4) ) >he didn't give any excuse at all. I recall one place where the narrator >says that Jesus didn't work any miracles in a particular place because they >didn't have faith there. But if Jesus himself said something like that, I >don't recall it. Indeed Jesus was very wary of claiming anything about >himself. This is what has led many non-Christians to say that the whole >business about being the Son of God was just a misinterpretation by his >followers. There is better evidence for this than for the (apparently >contradictory) criticism that Jesus was a charlatan. ]> Well, Jesus certainly is within his rights not to work miracles simply ]> because people demand them. He has every right not to be treated as a ]> laboratory specimen. ]Any fraud is within his rights not to work miracles simply because people ]demand them. But people will get suspicious unless you concoct plausible ]sounding excuses, and learn how to quiet hecklers. A real god might use ]these devices, but wouldn't need them. Well, I think you'ld better come up with some evidence that the text in question is intended as an excuse, seeing as how it is never referred to later in that matter, and given the considerable evidence in favor of the traditional interpretation. ]It's too late to shut the barn door once the cow's loose. It is skepticism ]that is responsible for clearing away the worthless testimony of previous ]generations to allow new knowledge to emerge. (Mind you I'm not saying ]that all testimony is worthless. Some can be confirmed by first skeptically ]rejecting it and then arriving at the same conclusions.) Sufficiently strong skepticism is strong enough to deny any historical claim. You seem to be saying that because the evidence for the ressurection happening in the form described in the gospels is necessarily weak by conventional historical standards, that you will deny it out of hand. Your analysis of this event seems to be predicated on the notion that there are no miracles; before you can legitimately use such a principle, you need to provide some justification for it. The fact that the universe has so far appeared to be regular as far as scientific investigation is concerned, in no way conflicts with the reality of miracles. Occam's Razor doesn't cut it here, since its use is predicated on absolute uniformity. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (04/14/85)
Somebody (I forget who) in n.r.c just got their condo sold. Is this the sort of miracle you want, Mike? If so *now* how are you going to evaluate it? How can you determine whether or not this was God or chance? Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/15/85)
In article <1191@topaz.ARPA> root@topaz.ARPA (Root) writes: > I'm getting tired of this discussion. Before anyone else accuses Jesus of > using excuses to cover up not being able to do miracles, please read the > Biblical texts you are commenting on. The version of the temptation story > which is presumably the earliest is the following "At once the Spirit made > him go into the desert, where he stayed forty days, being tempted by Satan. > Wild animals were there also, but angels came and helped him." (Mark > 1:12-13) Note: no comment about miracles. The versions in Matthew and Luke You have the gall to call a lack of evidence in one version a disproof of my hypothesis? I can think of two possibilities: that the version mentioning miracles was falsified, or the version without miracles is incomplete. Take your pick. You can't have both. > give three actual temptations. They are: > > - turn this stone into bread > - worship me (Satan) and I will give you power > - throw yourself off the temple, and God will rescue you. (No > motivation for this is stated. Presumably the idea is that > this will prove that he is the Messiah.) > > Note that the earliest version doesn't mention miracles at all. Also note > that in the ones that give the actual temptations, only one of the > temptations would be a miracle that Jesus would work, and one of them > wouldn't be a miracle at all. I think this shows that the story did not > arise as an explanation as to why Jesus didn't always work miracles. You are misrepresenting my argument. I hypothesize skeptics saying "work a miracle, show your power, or show your god's power." It doesn't matter to me which-- skeptics would suggest all of them. This parable would allow JC or his apostles to compare skeptics to Satan. > Now, as for the times when Jesus actually did refuse to work miracles. > Typically when Jesus didn't work miracles (e.g. Mk. 8:11-13, Mt. 16:1-4) ) > he didn't give any excuse at all. I recall one place where the narrator > says that Jesus didn't work any miracles in a particular place because they > didn't have faith there. But if Jesus himself said something like that, I > don't recall it. Indeed Jesus was very wary of claiming anything about > himself. This is what has led many non-Christians to say that the whole > business about being the Son of God was just a misinterpretation by his > followers. There is better evidence for this than for the (apparently > contradictory) criticism that Jesus was a charlatan. That no excuse is recorded provides no more evidence for your point than mine. Perhaps an excuse was made: but it was ignoble, and not recorded. Do you think the press releases of charlatans like Uri Geller headline the times he was unable to perform and left in embarrassment? As I mentioned before, charlatans frequently use "lack of faith" or "bad vibes" excuses. If JC had come out and said he was the son of god, he probably would have been subjected to much greater skepticism than he would as a prophet reputed to sometimes work miracles. I'm inclined to believe the misrepresentation by his followers hypothesis. After JC is no longer around, it makes sense for his followers to claim he was more important. If they made the claims after JC is gone, they have an easy excuse for "no miracles today." And (once again) what contradictions are you talking about? > I have no objection to the original offhand remark that the temptations > sounds like typical excuses of a charlatan. People are welcome to try to > shed new and amusing light on old passages. However before having a long > discussion on such an observation, I would appreciate it if contributors > would look a bit more carefully. How very patronizing of you. I would appreciate a bit more politeness and humility on your part. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (04/15/85)
In article <4880@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > ]The fraudulent Godhead, who hasn't any powers to use to rule the world, > ]must construct an excuse for why he doesn't do so. The best explanation > ]is one that embarasses the questioners, and puts them on the defensive by > ]comparing them to Satan. > > Well, he certainly doesn't use that device anywhere in Matthew or Luke, > which are the only gospels which count here. And besides, your first > sentence rather baldly assumes that the purpose of incarnating God is so > that he can come down and rule the world. Sounds to me like you're trying > to impose your notion of what a god should act like on Jesus, and then > saying he's an imposter because the shoe doesn't fit. You've precisely reversed my argument. I am hypothesizing a fraud, and making retrodictions of what we would expect from one in response to some common ideas of what prophets, sons of god, etc. are likely to be like. Because JC had to face the problem of other people's expectations. > There are two other problems with the above passage. One is pointed out by > root@topaz: only one of the three temptations involves working miracles. The > other, more serious, is that one can postulate a different sort of god, and > have an explanation which fits the event much better. If you had a god > which did not want to rule the world, and a Satan which wanted "break" > creation by tricking him into doing so, then the temptations are perfectly > obvious. It only requires one of the temptations to request a miracle of JC for the story to be used to quell requests for JC or his apostles to work miracles. "Fits the event better", huh? You are starting with the excess assumptions of God and Satan. Without those assumptions, I can construct a consistent hypothesis that fits just as well, using only human behavior such as we can observe around us. > Now, I do not doubt that Mike is going to continue to prefer his > explanation. But given that there are some inconsistencies surrounding his, > it is immediately evident to me that the is some presupposition at work > here: namely, that no one can work miracles. What inconsistencies? However, I do first look for a non-miraculous explanation. That is different than presupposing nobody can work miracles. > And I do think there are problems with Mike's interpretation, even taking a > very critical approach to the story. I have never, ever heard anyone use > the kind of justification for the failure of a miracle as Mike claims is > happening here. For one thing, Jesus even compares his diciples to Satan! > For another, the incident represents a fairly weak excuse, since Jesus is > only refusing to perform miracles as tests of his power. The temptations > are also never referred to by Jesus either; he certainly never uses the > incident as an excuse later on. The incident's content is so highly > allegorical anyway that its meaning isn't particularly affected by whether > it actually happened or not. Originality is no excuse for rejection of an argument. Nor is your admission that you haven't heard it before. The analogy of JC's disciples to Satan wouldn't hold water because (with a burst of theological handwaving) Satan knew of JC's divinity and wasn't won over to JC's side. The disciples were supposed to be unsure, and were won over to JC's side. You're right that the meaning is independant of whether the temptations ever took place or not. For both of our hypotheses. > ]Any fraud is within his rights not to work miracles simply because people > ]demand them. But people will get suspicious unless you concoct plausible > ]sounding excuses, and learn how to quiet hecklers. A real god might use > ]these devices, but wouldn't need them. > > Well, I think you'ld better come up with some evidence that the text in > question is intended as an excuse, seeing as how it is never referred to > later in that matter, and given the considerable evidence in favor of the > traditional interpretation. The text in question has traditionally been used to call skeptics tools of Satan. (Along with other texts.) I've personally been subject to such attacks with that particular text. If it is used that way now, why couldn't it have been used that way even during the lifetime of JC? > ]It's too late to shut the barn door once the cow's loose. It is skepticism > ]that is responsible for clearing away the worthless testimony of previous > ]generations to allow new knowledge to emerge. (Mind you I'm not saying > ]that all testimony is worthless. Some can be confirmed by first skeptically > ]rejecting it and then arriving at the same conclusions.) > > Sufficiently strong skepticism is strong enough to deny any historical claim. > You seem to be saying that because the evidence for the ressurection > happening in the form described in the gospels is necessarily weak by > conventional historical standards, that you will deny it out of hand. Your > analysis of this event seems to be predicated on the notion that there are > no miracles; before you can legitimately use such a principle, you need to > provide some justification for it. The fact that the universe has so far > appeared to be regular as far as scientific investigation is concerned, in > no way conflicts with the reality of miracles. Occam's Razor doesn't cut it > here, since its use is predicated on absolute uniformity. "Your analysis of this "event" seems to be predicated on the notion that there are god(s) and miracles; before you can legitimately use such a principle, you need to provide some justification for it." The above paragraph demonstrates the nature of your argument: special pleading. I am proposing a simpler hypothesis: simpler because it involves fewer assumptions. Contrary to what you say, I do not make an assumption of "no miracles": I simply do not use them in my hypothesis. Occam's Razor is a heuristic that even theologians sometimes employ to determine plausibility. You employ all sorts of heuristics yourself. When you use the "fits the event better" heuristic, you could still be wrong; the actual explanation could be otherwise. You are just trying to disqualify Occam's Razor because it weighs against your explanation. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/23/85)
In article <470@cybvax0.UUCP> mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) writes: >> Well, he certainly doesn't use that device anywhere in Matthew or Luke, >> which are the only gospels which count here. And besides, your first >> sentence rather baldly assumes that the purpose of incarnating God is so >> that he can come down and rule the world. Sounds to me like you're trying >> to impose your notion of what a god should act like on Jesus, and then >> saying he's an imposter because the shoe doesn't fit. >You've precisely reversed my argument. I am hypothesizing a fraud, and >making retrodictions of what we would expect from one in response to >some common ideas of what prophets, sons of god, etc. are likely to be >like. Because JC had to face the problem of other people's expectations. But it seems to me that the whole thrust of this discussion is that the fact of the temptations (as a story) does not distiguish between (a) Jesus is a fraud, and wants to have an excuse not to work miracles, and (b) Jesus is real, and Satan wants him to fall to the temptation to work miracles for the sake of getting followers. The story fits either explanation; therefore, it seems to me that some other standard gets you to (a). Sure, if you chose {Jesus is a fraud}, you will get Mike's interpretation of the temptations. But the mere existence of the story does not demonstrate {Jesus is a fraud}. >"Fits the event better", huh? You are starting with the excess assumptions >of God and Satan. Without those assumptions, I can construct a consistent >hypothesis that fits just as well, using only human behavior such as we >can observe around us. So we're back to arguing on what basis we choose between the hypotheses. >What inconsistencies? However, I do first look for a non-miraculous >explanation. That is different than presupposing nobody can work miracles. If you do not go on and look at the other possibilities, you are assuming that there are no miracles. One can construct a non-miraculous explanation for ANY story; one can simply hypothesize that the "witnesses" lied. Without testing that hypothesis, however, one cannot claim it as a theory. That is precisely the problem I have; the explanation Mike gives is valid to the extent that it is AN explanation, but I want some justification of why it is the RIGHT explanation. >> And I do think there are problems with Mike's interpretation, even taking a >> very critical approach to the story. I have never, ever heard anyone use >> the kind of justification for the failure of a miracle as Mike claims is >> happening here. For one thing, Jesus even compares his diciples to Satan! >> For another, the incident represents a fairly weak excuse, since Jesus is >> only refusing to perform miracles as tests of his power. The temptations >> are also never referred to by Jesus either; he certainly never uses the >> incident as an excuse later on. The incident's content is so highly >> allegorical anyway that its meaning isn't particularly affected by whether >> it actually happened or not. > >Originality is no excuse for rejection of an argument. Nor is your >admission that you haven't heard it before. See "The revelation" series of articles. >The analogy of JC's disciples to Satan wouldn't hold water because (with >a burst of theological handwaving) Satan knew of JC's divinity and wasn't >won over to JC's side. The disciples were supposed to be unsure, and >were won over to JC's side. I don't really understand this argument, but it certainly seems to conflict with the gospels. Jesus calls Peter Satan on at least one occaision, and the calls of the disciples are represented as being sudden, without use of miracles. >"Your analysis of this "event" seems to be predicated on the notion that > thereare god(s) and miracles; before you can legitimately use such a >principle, you need to provide some justification for it." Gladly. I am not taking this event as a demonstration of the Christian truth. I have other bases for my belief. Under those beliefs, I interpret the event as I have described. If you want to argue in the same manner, then make a claim. >The above paragraph demonstrates the nature of your argument: special >pleading. I am proposing a simpler hypothesis: simpler because it involves >fewer assumptions. Contrary to what you say, I do not make an assumption of >"no miracles": I simply do not use them in my hypothesis. But the question is, why do you reject the use of miracles? It seems to me that, to apply the methods you advocate, you need to have a test to distinguish between the various hypotheses. If there is no experimental test.... >Occam's Razor is a heuristic that even theologians sometimes employ to >determine plausibility. You employ all sorts of heuristics yourself. >When you use the "fits the event better" heuristic, you could still be wrong; >the actual explanation could be otherwise. You are just trying to disqualify >Occam's Razor because it weighs against your explanation. No, that is not what Occam is all about. Plausibility isn't a factor; prediction is. You rule out demons in physics because they have no predictive power; you ignore God because, even assuming that Christianity is correct, it doesn't increase the predictive power of a theory. The Razor allows you to anoint one theory in order that you do not at all times have to consider every theory. The problem is, when you start to talk about miracles, you give up all pretense of prediction. If you could predict it, then it wouldn't be miraculous (in the sense of violating natural law; a "horizontal" miracle, initiated in creation, obviously could not be distinguished on this level). If prediction is not possible, then we aren't talking about science anymore. Moreover, the simplest explanation (if you didn't see it yourself) is ALWAYS that the witnesses lied or were mistaken. It seems to me that, for a non-miraculous theory of miracles to be preferable, there needs to be some strong evidence of its truth. How strong? Well, obviously, it depends on the individual. I find the evidence strong enough; obviously, Mike doesn't. I don't like the use of "heuristic" in this context. It implies (to me anyway) that it leads you closer to truth. It in fact does no such thing. Occam's Razor allows you to pretend that the mathematical constructs of science are in fact truth. In science, we don't care that they aren't; but in religion, I think that it matters a great deal. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe