mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (09/17/86)
Mike Huybensz writes: >Why would a moment's thought reveal the claim of this anecdote to be >ridiculous? Because anyone with the slightest knowledge of how courts >work would realize that producing a text in court (such as the bible) is >merely hearsay. All the "facts" about the resurrection are merely hearsay >in the bible. And no lawyer would allow them to stand. This is of course true of all historical accounts (not that I would assert that the intent of the bible is to be taken as history). Assuming that the story is not entirely apocryphal, I have to assume that the learned professor's endorsement extends only to the assessment that the scripture *taken as a true historical account* forces one conclusion. This after all is the only sort of legal opinion one can have of such accounts-- and the very careful wording should be noted: "evidence presented", carrying the implication that it was presented as first-person evidential accounts, rather than as hearsay. >What is written in the Bible is merely a set of claims. And not even a >particularly remarkable set of claims, as religions go. Some of the >historical claims are probably true, and many of the theological claims >are probably bullshit. Once you rid yourself of the premise that the >bible is infallible (a premise that could never stand in an "unbiased >courtroom"), the bible is suddenly very unconvincing. Of course, the counterarguments are even poorer as far as evidence is concerned, since they are unquestionably speculatory. It doesn't seem to me that this is a particularly useful way to examine scripture or to decide religious questions. C. Wingate
sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP (Stephen Nahm) (09/17/86)
Sender: Distribution: Keywords: In article <3476@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: >Mike Huybensz writes: >> Once you rid yourself of the premise that the >>bible is infallible (a premise that could never stand in an "unbiased >>courtroom"), the bible is suddenly very unconvincing. > >Of course, the counterarguments are even poorer as far as evidence is >concerned, since they are unquestionably speculatory. It doesn't seem to >me that this is a particularly useful way to examine scripture or to decide >religious questions. It is an extremely useful way to examine scripture and to decide religious questions. Each person must stand in judgement of the claims of the Bible and decide for her- or himself what metaphysical conclusions should be drawn. That person has on the one hand the evidence of her or his life: It rains for a few days and then it stops. There are uncounted multitudes of animals and plants. On the other hand that person has the claims of the Bible: At one time it rained for 40 days over the entire Earth. Noah was lucky enough to be clued in on this by One that Knew, and so collected two of every animal and placed them in a large boat. The flood killed everything not in the boat. With the evidence in, what conclusions should be drawn? That Noah was lucky to be on God's good side? Or that the story is fantasy? The Resurrection myth has the same test to pass: How does it compare to the reality that I observe? (I have observed that people who are clinically dead for three days do not become alive.) If it doesn't pass, why should I now believe that observed reality is wrong? Because a large book of uncertain origin says it's so? Sorry, that's not enough. -- Steve Nahm UUCP route: {amd|cae780}!ubvax!sxnahm sxnahm@ubvax.UUCP Internet address: amd!ubvax!sxnahm@decwrl.DEC.COM
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (09/18/86)
In article <3476@umcp-cs.UUCP> mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes: > >Why would a moment's thought reveal the claim of this anecdote to be > >ridiculous? Because anyone with the slightest knowledge of how courts > >work would realize that producing a text in court (such as the bible) is > >merely hearsay. All the "facts" about the resurrection are merely hearsay > >in the bible. And no lawyer would allow them to stand. > > This is of course true of all historical accounts (not that I would assert > that the intent of the bible is to be taken as history). Quite so. Which is why so very few courtrooms decide questions of history. About the only cases I can think of concern the Holocaust, and those only worked because there are still numerous living witnesses. Any judge worth his salt is quite aware of the limits of the "truth" his court can determine. I'll leave speculation as to the intent of the Bible to you, Charlie. > Assuming that the > story is not entirely apocryphal, I have to assume that the learned > professor's endorsement extends only to the assessment that the scripture > *taken as a true historical account* forces one conclusion. This after all > is the only sort of legal opinion one can have of such accounts-- and the > very careful wording should be noted: "evidence presented", carrying the > implication that it was presented as first-person evidential accounts, > rather than as hearsay. If you wish to argue on that basis, then any competent defense would introduce numerous other documents with equal claims to being "true historical accounts." The contradictions ensuing would clearly render a decision impossible. > >What is written in the Bible is merely a set of claims. And not even a > >particularly remarkable set of claims, as religions go. Some of the > >historical claims are probably true, and many of the theological claims > >are probably bullshit. Once you rid yourself of the premise that the > >bible is infallible (a premise that could never stand in an "unbiased > >courtroom"), the bible is suddenly very unconvincing. > > Of course, the counterarguments are even poorer as far as evidence is > concerned, since they are unquestionably speculatory. Not if the counterargument is more a counterclaim by another religion. > It doesn't seem to me that this is a particularly useful way to examine > scripture or to decide religious questions. That was precisely the idea behind my criticism of the original anecdote. A moment's thought shows that the anecdote is too stupid to be worth repeating, yet it lives on. -- Strephon: "Have you the heart to apply the prosaic rules of evidence to a case brimming with such poetical emotion?" Chancellor: "Distinctly." From "Iolanthe", by Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh