Lenardos Debate - Round 9
This is round 9 in the debate between Lenardos and Jacobsen on the topic, "Do Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence?"
Lenardos - Round 9
Paul:
|
We've had eight rounds so far. Of course I'm biased, but from my position, it seems clear to me that I've dealt Lenardos a rather convincing defeat in this debate. I respectfully request Lenardos admit defeat at this point.
|
Brady: (Rolling on the floor laughing)
Paul, let’s take a quick review of our discussion so far:
Paul, let’s take a quick review of our discussion so far:
1.
2. 3. 4. 5. |
You have admitted you have no objective way of determining what “extraordinary evidence” is, or how to qualify or quantify such evidence.
You have conceded that you do not have a real methodology for doing history and therefore cannot judge any history, let alone the facts about Jesus life or resurrection. You have conceded that your made-up methodology is of no use. You have admitted that your positions are based on nothing more than subjective opinion and speculation. Every argument you have made against the NT, when applied to the rest of history, has been shown to destroy all we know of history. |
Paul wrote:
“By the way, I asked for input on this challenge from several other atheists, including Paul Tobin, Earl Doherty and Dan Barker. “
|
OK, now we have three more people without any objective way of determining what “extraordinary evidence” is; and do not have a real methodology for doing history, and whose positions are based on nothing more than subjective opinion and speculation. What does that get us? Four people agreeing that a bad argument is really a good argument, doesn’t really make it a good argument.
You have made some comments about Sander’s other points for determining the reliability of a document. If you want to go over each of these, I will be happy to do so. But you must realize that we are going to be going over the same requirements for your objections in the next set of criteria as we did in the first. Here is something you have to understand; I have been asking you to take your objections against the NT and test them on other documents and events, this is because I know that any criticism you bring against the NT will show that all of history is bad. You see, the amount of quality evidence for the NT is so great that it does not matter what the criteria is. If the criteria show we can know anything at all about that period, it will verify the NT. If the criterion destroys the NT, it will destroy the rest of history. This is your problem. This is why you must continually concede all your points. It doesn’t get any better as we go along.
So, if you want to go through the rest of Sander’s criteria, let me know. I am more than prepared to do so.
The rest of your paper is more subjective opinion and speculation. You still don’t have a methodology for doing history; you just give your opinion. I am sorry but opinion does not wield any persuasive force. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, but it just won’t change minds. To change minds, you need a real argument. To have a real argument, you need a real methodology.
Let me know if you want to continue.
Regards,
Brady
You have made some comments about Sander’s other points for determining the reliability of a document. If you want to go over each of these, I will be happy to do so. But you must realize that we are going to be going over the same requirements for your objections in the next set of criteria as we did in the first. Here is something you have to understand; I have been asking you to take your objections against the NT and test them on other documents and events, this is because I know that any criticism you bring against the NT will show that all of history is bad. You see, the amount of quality evidence for the NT is so great that it does not matter what the criteria is. If the criteria show we can know anything at all about that period, it will verify the NT. If the criterion destroys the NT, it will destroy the rest of history. This is your problem. This is why you must continually concede all your points. It doesn’t get any better as we go along.
So, if you want to go through the rest of Sander’s criteria, let me know. I am more than prepared to do so.
The rest of your paper is more subjective opinion and speculation. You still don’t have a methodology for doing history; you just give your opinion. I am sorry but opinion does not wield any persuasive force. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts, but it just won’t change minds. To change minds, you need a real argument. To have a real argument, you need a real methodology.
Let me know if you want to continue.
Regards,
Brady
Jacobsen - Round 9
Well, since I took the opportunity earlier to express that I found some of Lenardos' arguments gut-busting, he now gets to roll on the floor laughing at my suggestion to concede. Okay, I guess fair is fair on that...J
I wonder who our "viewing audience" thinks is winning this debate? I haven't ever put up a poll on my site, so I'm not sure how to do it. I'll look around and see if I can find how to put up a poll. Of course I know that regardless of who is "winning" (meaning who is doing the better job of presenting arguments) does not mean they are right--it just means they have done the better presentation. And of course, I suspect that people that basically agree with me will likely think I'm doing well, and those that basically agree with you will think you are doing well. Just as a suggestion: we could maybe have both have a poll on our respective sites that say, "who do you think is winning, Jacobsen or Lenardos?" and request theists vote on your poll, and atheists vote on my poll. Let me know what you think of this idea.
Now, lets get down to business...
Well, since I took the opportunity earlier to express that I found some of Lenardos' arguments gut-busting, he now gets to roll on the floor laughing at my suggestion to concede. Okay, I guess fair is fair on that...J
I wonder who our "viewing audience" thinks is winning this debate? I haven't ever put up a poll on my site, so I'm not sure how to do it. I'll look around and see if I can find how to put up a poll. Of course I know that regardless of who is "winning" (meaning who is doing the better job of presenting arguments) does not mean they are right--it just means they have done the better presentation. And of course, I suspect that people that basically agree with me will likely think I'm doing well, and those that basically agree with you will think you are doing well. Just as a suggestion: we could maybe have both have a poll on our respective sites that say, "who do you think is winning, Jacobsen or Lenardos?" and request theists vote on your poll, and atheists vote on my poll. Let me know what you think of this idea.
Now, lets get down to business...
1)
|
You have admitted you have no objective way of determining what “extraordinary evidence” is, or how to qualify or quantify such evidence.
|
First off, let's go back to an "extraordinary event." In Lee Strobel's The Case for Faith, Dr. William Lane Craig's provided a definition of a "miracle." I believe what he calls a "miracle" is what we've been calling an "extraordinary event." (If you feel that they are not the same thing, let me know what you think an "extraordinary event" is.) Anyway, Craig's definition of a miracle was, "an event which is not producible by the natural causes that are operative at the time and place that the event occurs." I like Dr. Craig's definition, let me know if you disagree with him. But, given that he's a well respected Christian apologist, it is my expectation that you won't have any complaints so far.
So, if we accept Dr. Craig's definition, what we are dealing with is something that is "not producible" by "natural causes." Well, just exactly how the hell do you provide "objective" measurement of this? "Objective" means measurable and repeatable. Miracles just fucking aren't measurable or repeatable! You throw in my face that I can't provide an objective measurement like its my fault. You provide the fucking measurement! You can't. Here, I'll lend you my voltmeter, my ammeter, my bathroom scale if you want the fucking thing. And when you come up with a way to measure the immeasurable, to repeat the unrepeatable, to objectify the nonobjective, let me know! I've used the expletives to express my exasperation at Lenardos continual complaints that I can't produce what just can't be produced as if it is my fault--but he can't either!
So, if we accept Dr. Craig's definition, what we are dealing with is something that is "not producible" by "natural causes." Well, just exactly how the hell do you provide "objective" measurement of this? "Objective" means measurable and repeatable. Miracles just fucking aren't measurable or repeatable! You throw in my face that I can't provide an objective measurement like its my fault. You provide the fucking measurement! You can't. Here, I'll lend you my voltmeter, my ammeter, my bathroom scale if you want the fucking thing. And when you come up with a way to measure the immeasurable, to repeat the unrepeatable, to objectify the nonobjective, let me know! I've used the expletives to express my exasperation at Lenardos continual complaints that I can't produce what just can't be produced as if it is my fault--but he can't either!
2)
|
You have conceded that you do not have a real methodology for doing history and therefore cannot judge any history, let alone the facts about Jesus life or resurrection.
|
I don't need to produce a methodology, I used your own and yours flunked. If yours flunks, why do I need to produce another one?
3)
|
You have conceded that your made-up methodology is of no use.
|
Where does Lenardos get this "admission" of mine from? Not from me. Lenardos' penchant for sticking words in my mouth and then throwing them in my face grows tiresome. I used your methodology, and it failed.
4)
|
You have admitted that your positions are based on nothing more than subjective opinion and speculation.
|
Groan, I've already responded to this charge. HISTORY IS NOT AN EXACT SCIENCE! Of course no science is. You mentioned this earlier, and I agree with you on that point. But the other sciences are orders of magnitude closer to being exact than history is. When you pull the history-o-meter out of your butt, and tell me how to put an exact measurement of history, then maybe I'll take your complaint here seriously. Until then, there is no history-o-meter that can tell us for certain whether the cow kicked over the lantern and started the Great Chicago Fire. And there is no history-o-meter that can tell us what unknown preachers (at the time) got executed 2,000 years ago.
5)
|
Every argument you have made against the NT, when applied to the rest of history, has been shown to destroy all we know of history.
|
I've already responded to this charge as well. History doesn't even try to validate the minutiae of the execution of an unknown (at the time) preacher in a small town 2,000 years ago. Your argument here is as if there is this hypothetical history-o-meter. And you are basically claiming that everything reads a low number on the history-o-meter 2,000 years ago. And then you argue, "well, everything reads a low number on the history-o-meter 2,000 years ago, so we should expect the Resurrection to read a low number on the history-o-meter and we should accept it really happened." This is just silly. If it reads low, it reads low. You can't make the evidence for the crucifixion or the Resurrection look stronger by saying the evidence for other things a long time ago is also low.
Another thing about history is this: it doesn't depend on each and every event to be true. Let's say you were to read a history of Constantine, and say 20% of the book is wrong--history didn't really happen that way. If 20% of the history of Constantine is wrong, the overall picture of Constantine doesn't change dramatically. Religion, (particularly the Christian religion) requires each and every claim to be true. If 20% of what Jesus is reported to have done didn't really happen, Christianity falls apart. That is but one reason why religion and history are different.
In Round 8, Lenardos made a challenge, "Great, pick any first century figure and apply your criteria to events surrounding him." I conceded in my Round 8 that this would be a nice thing to do, and isn't an unreasonable request, but that I just wasn't going to be able to do it. And I conceded that the responses that I got from the other atheists I contacted also did not specifically address this challenge either. To which Lenardos responds, "OK, now we have three more people without any objective way of determining what 'extraordinary evidence' is..." I think I was clear which challenge I was talking about, the one about picking some other first century figure. The fact that Lenardos seems to figure that the fact that I conceded the specific challenge about picking some other figure wasn't met was a good opportunity to put words into the mouths of me and the other atheists is, frankly, appalling. Maybe I should give Lenardos the "benefit of the doubt" that maybe he misunderstood what challenge I asked for help with, but Lenardos seems smart enough to be able to read. I just reread my Round 8, (I have not edited it) and what I said is clear. (The first two paragraphs of my Round 8 is the relevant material.)
Now, what Lenardos also neglects to mention is that the support material, particularly the support material provided by Tobin, does indeed address issues in Sander's criteria. I believe that my arguments, and Tobin's support material, does indeed show that the crucifixion fails Sander's criteria. So now the burden of proof is on Lenardos' hands to show that I'm wrong. Instead of trying to shove words down my throat, let's try putting up some evidence. I put up mine, time for him to put up his.
ADDENDUM:
I decided to add a bit more to my response to Lenardos over what I wrote yesterday, so I'm adding this addendum. Frankly, I was rather annoyed at Lenardos' response and his penchant to put words in my mouth, and into the mouths of the other people I contacted. So, the "kid gloves" come off. I've been letting Lenardos off far too easy, and I won't make that mistake again.
Since Lenardos has repeatedly complained that I cannot come up with an objective measure of extraordinary evidence. Okay, fine. I want a PURELY OBJECTIVE measure of non extraordinary evidence. Lenardos mentioned Sander's method. Each of the five points are SUBJECTIVE. Lenardos needs to come up with a 100% OBJECTIVE measurement on each of those five points, or throw out Sander's method. Beyond that, Lenardos also needs to come up with an OBJECTIVE proof that Sander's method is indeed reliable, or we will have to throw it out. Also note that Lenardos cannot rely upon comparisons to other events in ancient history, as such comparisons are also SUBJECTIVE. Finally, Lenardos will find no sympathy if he whimpers that what I want would destroy all of history. That is correct. To demand a pure OBJECTIVE measurement of history will indeed destroy it all. So, let's have it Lenardos. Let's have the pure OBJECTIVE measurement of history, along with mathematical proof of the validity of this OBJECTIVE measurement. (I suggest he start by pulling that history-o-meter out of his butt...)
Oh, and by the way, should Lenardos fail to to provide this pure OBJECTIVE measurement of history, I will be quite ready to put some "nice" words in his mouth about how dishonest his demands have been...
Another thing about history is this: it doesn't depend on each and every event to be true. Let's say you were to read a history of Constantine, and say 20% of the book is wrong--history didn't really happen that way. If 20% of the history of Constantine is wrong, the overall picture of Constantine doesn't change dramatically. Religion, (particularly the Christian religion) requires each and every claim to be true. If 20% of what Jesus is reported to have done didn't really happen, Christianity falls apart. That is but one reason why religion and history are different.
In Round 8, Lenardos made a challenge, "Great, pick any first century figure and apply your criteria to events surrounding him." I conceded in my Round 8 that this would be a nice thing to do, and isn't an unreasonable request, but that I just wasn't going to be able to do it. And I conceded that the responses that I got from the other atheists I contacted also did not specifically address this challenge either. To which Lenardos responds, "OK, now we have three more people without any objective way of determining what 'extraordinary evidence' is..." I think I was clear which challenge I was talking about, the one about picking some other first century figure. The fact that Lenardos seems to figure that the fact that I conceded the specific challenge about picking some other figure wasn't met was a good opportunity to put words into the mouths of me and the other atheists is, frankly, appalling. Maybe I should give Lenardos the "benefit of the doubt" that maybe he misunderstood what challenge I asked for help with, but Lenardos seems smart enough to be able to read. I just reread my Round 8, (I have not edited it) and what I said is clear. (The first two paragraphs of my Round 8 is the relevant material.)
Now, what Lenardos also neglects to mention is that the support material, particularly the support material provided by Tobin, does indeed address issues in Sander's criteria. I believe that my arguments, and Tobin's support material, does indeed show that the crucifixion fails Sander's criteria. So now the burden of proof is on Lenardos' hands to show that I'm wrong. Instead of trying to shove words down my throat, let's try putting up some evidence. I put up mine, time for him to put up his.
ADDENDUM:
I decided to add a bit more to my response to Lenardos over what I wrote yesterday, so I'm adding this addendum. Frankly, I was rather annoyed at Lenardos' response and his penchant to put words in my mouth, and into the mouths of the other people I contacted. So, the "kid gloves" come off. I've been letting Lenardos off far too easy, and I won't make that mistake again.
Since Lenardos has repeatedly complained that I cannot come up with an objective measure of extraordinary evidence. Okay, fine. I want a PURELY OBJECTIVE measure of non extraordinary evidence. Lenardos mentioned Sander's method. Each of the five points are SUBJECTIVE. Lenardos needs to come up with a 100% OBJECTIVE measurement on each of those five points, or throw out Sander's method. Beyond that, Lenardos also needs to come up with an OBJECTIVE proof that Sander's method is indeed reliable, or we will have to throw it out. Also note that Lenardos cannot rely upon comparisons to other events in ancient history, as such comparisons are also SUBJECTIVE. Finally, Lenardos will find no sympathy if he whimpers that what I want would destroy all of history. That is correct. To demand a pure OBJECTIVE measurement of history will indeed destroy it all. So, let's have it Lenardos. Let's have the pure OBJECTIVE measurement of history, along with mathematical proof of the validity of this OBJECTIVE measurement. (I suggest he start by pulling that history-o-meter out of his butt...)
Oh, and by the way, should Lenardos fail to to provide this pure OBJECTIVE measurement of history, I will be quite ready to put some "nice" words in his mouth about how dishonest his demands have been...
Follow the 'Next' link to the next round.