wkp@lanl.ARPA (04/10/85)
>[Charley Wingate writes:] >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. I find this kind of thinking rather dangerous, Charley. To rely on the testimony of previous generations (the earth is flat, the "blood libels" against the Jews, etc.) as a principal reason for belief is illogical. A more reasonable answer would be to rely on historical testimony only when it does not conflict with rational thinking or analysis of the evidence. If one's ancestors were convinced that Julius Caesar was really a Unicorn, I see no reason to rely on that testimony as an article of faith. I am only saying that your belief in the resurrection cannot be justified by any logical or rational argument. I am even surprised at your attempt to make such a justification, since I understand you to be somewhat knowledgeable about Kierkegaard and many of the more modern theological writings. -- bill peter {ihnp4,seismo}!cmcl2!lanl!wkp
mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (04/11/85)
In article <24298@lanl.ARPA> wkp@lanl.ARPA writes: >>[Charley Wingate writes:] >>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. > I find this kind of thinking rather dangerous, Charley. To rely on > the testimony of previous generations (the earth is flat, the "blood > libels" against the Jews, etc.) as a principal reason for belief is > illogical. Unfortunately, outside of material evidence, it is the only evidence we have of anything that happened long ago, particularly before the advent of tape and film as recording media. Nearly all of our knowledge of history before 1800 is based upon the testimony of individuals. Ultimately the christian church is founded upon the testimony of the early church. People have tended to forget, in all this argument, that the evidence for the resurrection can only be that of personal testimony, unless Jesus were to choose to parade around on earth forever, so that all could see. Obviously, he has not chosen to take the second route. > A more reasonable answer would be to rely on historical testimony only > when it does not conflict with rational thinking or analysis of the > evidence. If one's ancestors were convinced that Julius Caesar was > really a Unicorn, I see no reason to rely on that testimony as an > article of faith. Rational thinking here seems to mean "the universe as presently conceived of by science". Therefore, Bill appears to be saying that the preconceived principles of science may be assumed to be inviolate. I also do not see any analysis here; certainly an "analysis" based upon the precepts of, say, physiology would be begging the question. Suppose for a moment that Jesus had instead chosen to risen from the dead in Jerusalem in 1985. Would there not be precisely the same problem? Would many choose not to believe the film clips, the interviews, the expert witnesses? The problem is, if the resurrection is fact, then the evidence would have to be in the form of testimony. Bill's arguments seems to imply that he would accept no amount of testimony. Now, maybe this is a valid apporach to the problem, but if it is, a simple appeal to scientific method won't do. A justification for rejecting the form of the answer is needed. > I am only saying that your belief in the resurrection cannot be > justified by any logical or rational argument. I am even surprised > at your attempt to make such a justification, since I understand you > to be somewhat knowledgeable about Kierkegaard and many of the more > modern theological writings. Well, I didn't THINK I was trying to make a logical argument for belief.... Let's try this again. [rustle of notes] I think the problem is in the phrase "reason for belief". What I should have said was that the testimony is essential for belief. My language implied that the testimony itself was the cause of belief. The testimony is essential, because it is what provides the FORM of belief; one could not believe that Jesus had risen unless one was told. It is not, however, solely the ground for belief. Numerous other things lead us to or away from faith. We seem to all agree that there is no purely rational basis (especially scientific) for belief in the Christian message. The evidence simply is not amenable to scientific analysis. Charley Wingate umcp-cs!mangoe