Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Tegularius]

Nonetheless, the notion that oral histories have no evidentiary value is both silly and obnoxious. It's as if people are saying, "Those poor benighted savages who didn't even write anything down until years later, can't possibly have any notion of history, or truth. They may think that there is good evidence for their stories, but we sophisticated modern people are so much smarter that we know better."

I’m not one of those who believe that. In fact, I think they had as least as much oxygen going to their brains as to ours. Yes, we do know better but it took us a very long time to accomplish that, Christianity having a lot to do with holding us back.

Herodotus, of course, has been called both the "father of history" and the "father of lies", but much of what we know about the ancient Greeks derived from him.

That’s only partly true. What he concentrated and wrote about regarding Greeks were the Greco-Persian Wars with a lot of emphasis on Persia itself.

A great many stories from the Bible have confirmation from other stories (don't ask me which ones, I don't know and don't much care). Same with other oral histories and myths. The discovery of the ruins of Troy added some credence to the Iliad, although I douby many of us believe that Athena and Ares participated in the battles. Other oral histories (some of which have supernatural features) can be partly confirmed by archaeology, or history from other sources.

I agree. Oral histories, from which the OT itself was composed, definitely had some historical events as background. The thing with oral histories is that they usually turn into stories; for example, you mentioned the Illiad in which the mundane was enhanced with the supernatural. Not least, some of the events depicted in the bible as historical were completely fictional even if its supernatural aspects are not considered.

But the evidence provided by the Bible (and other ancient or oral histories) for mundane events is precisely identical to that for supernatural events. We don't believe the supernatural stories not because there is no evidence supporting them, but because we require better evidence before believing things that strain our credulity.

I think here you’re desperately striving for a compromise between what’s possible and what is not.

[Sy Borg]

Then again, there were no claims that Alexander the Great was the son of God, born of a virgin, who healed the sick, conjured up food supplies, and was resurrected from the dead.

If such fantastical claims were made about Alexander the Great then he would have been consigned to legend, like King Arthur.

Actually, Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus, and there were lots of claims that he was the son of a God. His birth attendant was none other than Artemis (which is why her temple at Ephesus burned down on the day of his birth -- she was busy attending Olympia, Alexander's mother). Yet nobody says Alexander didn't conquer Persia and Egypt and that the stories about him are all "fiction".

I have not heard of those claims, so the general picture portrayed to the public is that Alexander III of Macedonia, who sent armies across to conquer numerous nations, many of which have their own accounts of him.

Wiki and other encylopaedia entries make no mention of the more spurious claims made about Alexander. By contrast, look up Jesus Christ and you get:

Most Christians believe he is the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah (the Christ), prophesied in the Hebrew Bible.

Apples and oranges. The evidence for Jesus's existence is far less and there is no credible evidence of him breaking the laws of physics to perform miracles. Just promotional and metaphorical tales.

[EricPH]

Then again, there were no claims that Alexander the Great was the son of God, born of a virgin, who healed the sick, conjured up food supplies, and was resurrected from the dead.

If such fantastical claims were made about Alexander the Great then he would have been consigned to legend, like King Arthur.

Actually, Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus, and there were lots of claims that he was the son of a God. His birth attendant was none other than Artemis (which is why her temple at Ephesus burned down on the day of his birth -- she was busy attending Olympia, Alexander's mother). Yet nobody says Alexander didn't conquer Persia and Egypt and that the stories about him are all "fiction".

Alexander had great power, but his claim to be the son of god, died with him.

Jesus had little power or status when he spent his time on Earth. He was crucified like a criminal. Yet two thousand years later, billions still believe he is the Son of God.

Had Jesus been a fraud, his words would have died with him, just like Alexander's.

[Sy Borg]

Then again, there were no claims that Alexander the Great was the son of God, born of a virgin, who healed the sick, conjured up food supplies, and was resurrected from the dead.

If such fantastical claims were made about Alexander the Great then he would have been consigned to legend, like King Arthur.

Actually, Alexander claimed to be the son of Zeus, and there were lots of claims that he was the son of a God. His birth attendant was none other than Artemis (which is why her temple at Ephesus burned down on the day of his birth -- she was busy attending Olympia, Alexander's mother). Yet nobody says Alexander didn't conquer Persia and Egypt and that the stories about him are all "fiction".

Alexander had great power, but his claim to be the son of god, died with him.

Jesus had little power or status when he spent his time on Earth. He was crucified like a criminal. Yet two thousand years later, billions still believe he is the Son of God.

Had Jesus been a fraud, his words would have died with him, just like Alexander's.

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/log ... Popularity

Using the popularity of a premise or proposition as evidence for its truthfulness. This is a fallacy which is very difficult to spot because our “common sense” tells us that if something is popular, it must be good/true/valid, but this is not so, especially in a society where clever marketing, social and political weight, and money can buy popularity.

Not necessarily. If Constantine did not suffer from lead poisoning he probably would not have had the hallucinations that converted him to Christianity, with far-reaching effects. The Church's great power of the past has only partially dissipated.

By the same token, some great artists remain unknown while some famous artists are far less talented.

[Jacob10]

I see you are full of opinions and beliefs, none of which you can justify with logical arguments, nor you are able to present a counterargument to those who don't endorse your opinions and beliefs. Your only point is a well-known fallacy: the ad ignorantiam fallacy.

You have offered nothing worthy of being called an argument. Just stated your opinions and beliefs, including what you believed to be a "red herring", which is obviously dead wrong.


What "God"? How that thing differs from the Flying Teapot or the Dragon in my Garage?

So far, your philosophy amounts to a set of beliefs and opinions which you can't justify properly, only making use of the ad ignorantiam fallacy. So you come up with the idea of an entity you just made up and then say: "you can't prove it doesn't exist". That's the poorest level of thought one could imagine, but thoughts that come to your mind while showering or gardening are not philosophy.

My philosophy is totally sound and nature agrees with me.

Natures logic is based upon 0,0..0,1..1,0…1,1 logic and not 0,1…1,0 logic.

The 4 off magnetic force combination interactions definitively confirm natures 0,0….0,1…1,0…1,1 logic and definitively confirms that 0 does not equal 1 and 1 does not equal 0.

If 0 and 1 were the same then the 4 off magnetic force interactions would be the same and they are not.

The 2 off magnetic forces in nature are ABSOLUTES.

Yeah, sure, keep repeating your nonsensical mantra to fool yourself. It isn't fooling me for sure. Come back when you're able to construct an argument or a counterargument.

All sciences are interconnected.

I’m just letting you know where the logic for my sound philosophy comes from.

Natures logic.

It’s amazing really that something as simple as 4 off magnetic force interactions can bring the whole of the present scientific model come crashing down.

You see the present scientific model invented by secular scientists is based upon the false claim that the 2 off magnet forces of nature are the same and they are not the same and we have definitive proof of this.

[Belindi]

Historiography as a modern academic discipline has enough of scientific research in it so it's not fiction. No book of The Bible is modern historiography, and the writers and most editors of books in The Bible had no notion of modern historiography. If Kings is historiography in the modern sense then it must be written by someone who has access to scientifically accurate investigation. Recording man's past is a different activity from what it once was.

Nonetheless The Bible may be mined for historical or anthropological source material. People who use The Bible for religious devotions are behaving neither as historiographers or anthropologists and are often confused as to the nature of history and anthropology . Besides religious devotions, historiography, and anthropology , The Bible books are also used for poetry ,folk mythology, and political propaganda.

Herodotus is credited with originating modern history and historiography, although, of course, the methods of historians have changed over the last 2500 years. Still, most ancient histories and oral histories probably have some evidentiary value, although they are also influenced by literary motifs, religious intentions, and the imaginations of a myriad of story tellers.

Until recent centuries, European folk history has been largely political/religious propaganda. The Battle of Maldon for instance (which I was required to read and listen to) was heroic in intention and the poetry idiom was suited to oral popular culture. I don't know, but I can imagine that a nomadic tribe ,such as the Israelites ,seeking to colonise someone else's land would need heroic fables to encourage a hard endeavour.

Against this economic and political background it's remarkable that the ancient Israelites created the basics of a moral code that is revered by good people today. It's this juncture where discussions of 'atheism' are at: did God intend the ancient Israelites to be ethical leaders, or was the fact that they were ethical leaders a matter of historical determinism?

Ancient Greek historians enjoyed a renaissance in early modern Europe, first of all among educated people. Christendom had heretofore been pretty well all-enveloping.

[Sy Borg]

Jacob, fundamentalist theists have been trying for a long time to discredit science, with churches having never forgiven scientists for exposing numerous religious falsehoods and scams.

If scientific models did not work, this discussion would not be possible. It's ironic how often fundamentalists use technology that relies on established scientific principles to claim that those principles do not work.

[EricPH]

Not necessarily. If Constantine did not suffer from lead poisoning he probably would not have had the hallucinations that converted him to Christianity, with far-reaching effects. The Church's great power of the past has only partially dissipated.

Constantine was only a man like Alexander, he is only one of billions who have converted to Christianity. If Christianity depended on Constantine, then Christianity would have died with him. Constantine had less influence on Christianity than, Adam, Noah, Abraham or Moses. If you are saying that Christianity survived because of Constantine's hallucinations, then I would have to conclude that God made it so.

[Ecurb]

I think here you’re desperately striving for a compromise between what’s possible and what is not.

On the contrary. I think it's perfectly reasonable ot have preconceptions about what's possible, and to require BETTER evidence to accept events that defy these preconceptions than to believe more mundane evidence. I'm not at all trying to offer support for the supernatural; I'm just trying to examine what we mean by "evidence" and why some is more persuasive than others.

My Sasquatch hunting friend (he's well known in the Sasquatch hunting community and has been on the TV show "Sasquatch Hunter") claims to have seen a "Quatch". "It was at night, and the sasquatch was peeking out at me from behind a tree about 50-75 yars away," he told me. Now that is iffy evidence. Everyone knows that in the woods, at night, with one's sensibilites on high alert, it's difficult to know exactly what one is seeing. Seek and you shall find. If you're looking for Sasquatches, a strange branch waving in the wind behind a distant tree might appear to be a sasquatch's head. Nonehless, the "evidence" is identical to him saying, "I saw a bear peeking out at me." Yet I'd be far more likely to believe the latter, because it fits my precoceptions about the inhabitants of the woods here in the Pacific Northwest.

The same, of course, is reasonable for supernatural claims. (Sasquatches, if they exist, ar enot supernatural.) I'll grant that we find the supernatural incredible in part on the basis of (general rather than specific) evidence -- it does not conform to the normal, natural world we have experienced. However, some specific evidence (like an eye witness report) of supernatural activity ("I saw a ghost!") might still constitute "evidence". It's just that (quite reasonably) the evidence doesn't rise to the level where we accept it as true. To those raised to believe in ghosts, or Gods, or miracles, the evidence might be more persuasive.

[Ecurb]

There are claims of eye witness accounts, that is, there is people claiming, assuring that somewhere, some time, some people, witnessed something. Those claims are not eye witness accounts themselves and unless the supposed eye witness accounts were documented, all we can do is either believe or not believe that there were actual people claiming such things. There is no evidence of real eye witness accounts there. If I say some people witnessed a goal by Maradona in the 1966 World Cup in England, that claim is not an eye witness account. If I can show records of people claiming such thing, or if I claim I witnessed it myself, that's an eye witness account.

And then, even if one did get the evidence that there were people claiming they saw something, that's only evidence of their claims, not of the truth of their claims. In a court of law where evidence is weighed, real eye witnesses will tell their story of what they saw, and their story, if it's credible, will amount to evidence, but one of the weakest piece of evidence. Since they are present, it is obvious that their testimony is an eye witness account. But if they come up with a story of having heard or read about someone else saying that some other people witnessed something, that's not an eye witness account, that's hearsay.

Get it now?

The muddled grammar in this post mirrors the muddled thinking from which it derives. The Count dismisses eye witness accounts "unless they are documented". Documented? Do you mean "written down in a book"? Like (perhaps) the Bible?

Apparently Lucanor thinks that when an eye witness claims to have seen something, that is only evidence that he is making a claim, not that the event he witnessed happened. OK. We all know that eye witnesses may lie, or be mistaken, or hallucinate. Their testimony is still "evidence", and not "the weakest piece of evidence". I wonder if Count Lucanor believes even his own eyes? If he does, why not believe other people?

[Ecurb]

The evidence for Jesus's existence is far less and there is no credible evidence of him breaking the laws of physics to perform miracles. Just promotional and metaphorical tales.

Since Alexander the Great was probably the most renowned person in the classical world, of course his existance is "well documented". You and I agree about the "credibility" of the evidence for Jesus miracles. However, millions of others disagree, and it would be silly (and insulting to Christians) to claim that there is no "evidence" for the miracles, when there clearly is evidence (however much we may find it incredible).

[Ecurb]

By the way, all scientific experiments, conducted in labratories by scientists in white coats, and reported in peer reviewed journals rely on "eye witness claims". Where else would these reports come from? Are these studies what Lucanor refers to as "the weakest piece of evidence"?

[Count Lucanor]

The Count dismisses eye witness accounts "unless they are documented". Documented? Do you mean "written down in a book"? Like (perhaps) the Bible?

Oh, Jesus!
Claims of someone witnessing something are not the same as someone actually recording (by any means) their testimony about witnessing something. Your Bible tells stories from hearsay. Do you think Moses witnessed his own death and then wrote it down?

Apparently Lucanor thinks that when an eye witness claims to have seen something, that is only evidence that he is making a claim, not that the event he witnessed happened.

No, the only problem is that you're confused because you cannot understand the difference between a story teller claiming someone witnessed something and the record of someone that witnessed something.

OK. We all know that eye witnesses may lie, or be mistaken, or hallucinate. Their testimony is still "evidence", and not "the weakest piece of evidence".

Bad evidence is still called evidence, but it is bad evidence nonetheless. Unlike good evidence.

I wonder if Count Lucanor believes even his own eyes? If he does, why not believe other people?

Because I believe my own eyes? What else?

[Sy Borg]

By the way, all scientific experiments, conducted in labratories by scientists in white coats, and reported in peer reviewed journals rely on "eye witness claims". Where else would these reports come from? Are these studies what Lucanor refers to as "the weakest piece of evidence"?

C'mon. Scientist claims can be tested and verified. The claim that some superhuman capable of miracles lived centuries beforehand cannot be verified.

Over the years, many sensible, functional and decent people have told me that they have seen a ghost, and they were sure of it. Does that mean I should believe them without question?

On the other hand, if thousands of scientists have tested a theory with a view to finding flaws, and they cannot, then you have a solid theory, like relativity. We have to consider what used to be called "Chinese whispers", given that a single simple message can change significantly when verbally passed between just ten people, let alone an entire saga passed down orally for centuries before those hand-me-down tales were documented.

[EricPH]

The Count dismisses eye witness accounts "unless they are documented". Documented? Do you mean "written down in a book"? Like (perhaps) the Bible?

Oh, Jesus!
Claims of someone witnessing something are not the same as someone actually recording (by any means) their testimony about witnessing something. Your Bible tells stories from hearsay. Do you think Moses witnessed his own death and then wrote it down?

Apparently Lucanor thinks that when an eye witness claims to have seen something, that is only evidence that he is making a claim, not that the event he witnessed happened.

No, the only problem is that you're confused because you cannot understand the difference between a story teller claiming someone witnessed something and the record of someone that witnessed something.

OK. We all know that eye witnesses may lie, or be mistaken, or hallucinate. Their testimony is still "evidence", and not "the weakest piece of evidence".

Bad evidence is still called evidence, but it is bad evidence nonetheless. Unlike good evidence.

I wonder if Count Lucanor believes even his own eyes? If he does, why not believe other people?

Because I believe my own eyes? What else?

Anything to do with God we take on through faith and trust. There is enough evidence to believe or not to believe.

When you say that you believe your own eyes, how little have you seen? Have you seen pre Big Bang, have you witnessed how life started from no life billions of years ago. If you are being truthful, there is more speculation than evidence for these big questions.

You are free to believe anything you choose to believe, and that is not a problem. The problem for science is when you claim to have evidence to back up your beliefs. Science should be about finding truth.

We are here today, something either had no beginning, or something did not come from anything. For me God is the best explanation that can account for the complexity of life we see today. My belief, my faith, I cannot claim anything more.