sdb@tekecs.UUCP (05/28/83)
Relay-Version:version B 2.10 5/3/83; site mhuxt.UUCP Message-ID:<1266@tekecs.UUCP> Date:Sat, 28-May-83 13:11:25 EDT Brian Nixon, commenting on Tim Maroney with respect to the Bible as a source, makes comments to the effect: If we cannot accept biblical personalities as authorities on biblical events, then we cannot accept Canadians as authorities on Canada, citizens of the US on events of the US, and so on. Brian's point is valid, but it isn't the point he thought he was making. Let me rephrase it slightly: We cannot accept biblical personalities as TOTALLY RELIABLE, UNCHALLANGEABLE authorities on biblical events, nor can we accept Canadians as totally reliable, unchallangeable authorities on Canadian events, nor US citizens as totally reliable, unchallangeable authorities on US events. (Remember the George-Washington-and-the-cherry-tree story?) This is true because of the more general case: We cannot accept ANYONE as a totally reliable, unchallangeable authority on any subject whatever! Whenever any individual gives us evidence of something, one must ask a series of questions: 1. How reliable and knowledgeable is the person on this subject? 2. Does the person have an ulterior motive in presenting the evidence? 3. How much error and distortion is involved in how the evidence is presented? 4. How much error and distortion was involved in how the evidence was gathered? 5. Does the evidence support the supposition in question? 6. Are there any other suppositions contradictory to the supposition in question which are nonetheless consistent with the evidence? 7. What other evidence is there relevant to this supposition? How does it stack up against these criteria? Does any of it contradict the supposition in question? 8. Does the supposition in question suggest any predictions about the world? What is the result of testing these predictions? 9. If the above tests tend to support the supposition in question, does the supposition in question contradict other suppositions about the world at large that we consier to be reliable? The new supposition may be true, but this impact must be strongly investigated. So much for our first term of Epistimology 103. Here is your midterm: Given what we have learned here, does the Bible represent conclusive evidence of the resurrection? Does Josh Mcdowell? Steve Den Beste [decvax|ucbvax]!teklabs!tekecs!sdb