Lenardos Debate - Round 10
This is round 10 in the debate between Lenardos and Jacobsen on the topic, "Do Extraordinary Events Require Extraordinary Evidence?"
Lenardos - Round 10
Paul wrote:
Paul wrote:
|
“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!”
|
Paul, perhaps we find here a couple of the reasons we have been missing each other in our discussion. First of all, nothing in history is repeatable. That is why we use the historical method for doing history and not the scientific method. The scientific method requires repeatability. To insist that history must be repeated before we can know about it is, of course, a categorical fallacy. To require voltmeters be used in historical investigation is nonsense. Ask any head of History at any University.
The other error here is that you expect historical investigation to necessarily show causes. But the primary job of historical investigation is to demonstrate what the knowable effects are. So it is with miracles and the resurrection. Let me give you an example: Let’s say that I use one of my secret devices to levitate a woman 5 feet in the air. Let’s say that a few moments later God does the same thing in front of the same crowd. The crowd could not tell if I did both or one or neither of those levitations. But they could report that they saw both. One was a miracle, one natural. The same method we use to tell that the natural one occurred is the same method we use to tell the miraculous one occurred. Sometimes historical investigation can uncover causes, but that is not the primary job. Why did Nero kill so many people? What was the cause for each decision? We don’t know for each one, for some I guess we do, because those are reported. But it doesn’t mean we can’t determine that Nero murdered many people because we don’t know the cause for each decision to kill.
Let’s continue on in this vein of the discussion. Here you attack objectivity:
The other error here is that you expect historical investigation to necessarily show causes. But the primary job of historical investigation is to demonstrate what the knowable effects are. So it is with miracles and the resurrection. Let me give you an example: Let’s say that I use one of my secret devices to levitate a woman 5 feet in the air. Let’s say that a few moments later God does the same thing in front of the same crowd. The crowd could not tell if I did both or one or neither of those levitations. But they could report that they saw both. One was a miracle, one natural. The same method we use to tell that the natural one occurred is the same method we use to tell the miraculous one occurred. Sometimes historical investigation can uncover causes, but that is not the primary job. Why did Nero kill so many people? What was the cause for each decision? We don’t know for each one, for some I guess we do, because those are reported. But it doesn’t mean we can’t determine that Nero murdered many people because we don’t know the cause for each decision to kill.
Let’s continue on in this vein of the discussion. Here you attack objectivity:
|
“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...)”
|
We seem to be going around in circles as we have already discussed objectivity sometime back. Perhaps we need to review what was already said. What we mean by “objective” is that our conclusions are based on the evidence outside of ourselves and not our preferences and likes. Subjectivity bases its conclusions on our preferences and likes or dislikes as the case may be.
The Sander’s criteria meet that definition of objective. Yes, there is a “subject” involved in drawing the conclusion, that would be you, but the conclusion itself is not based on a like or dislike, but is supported by the evidence. We have a means outside of ourselves that gives us a gauge or history-o-meter by which we determine if there is a sufficient quantity of quality evidence. But as I have said on many occasions, I am not tied to Sander’s method. I have offered you the option of choosing any historical criteria that does not base its conclusion on your preferences or likes, that has been or is currently used by historians, which can at least in principle be met and does not disprove what we already know about history. We only got into the Sander’s method because you were unable to come up with one.
Allow me to go over the Sander’s criteria and show you why it is objective:
The bibliographical test attempts to answer the question, “Do we have an accurate copy of what was originally written or how accurate is the copy we have?” To draw our conclusion we look to texts and dating of the texts, comparing the texts based on the rules of textual criticism to draw our conclusions.
We do not say, “Do these documents agree with me and my points of view?” then make a decision based on that.
The next two tests, the internal and external authorship tests, try to answer the question, “are the authors are people who have something to say about the subject they are writing about.” We look internally into the documents to see if they make claims about the author and externally to see if there is anybody who knew the author or ran in his circle that can tell us about author.
The last two tests try to answer the question, “compared to artifacts and other reliable writers of the period, how accurate is the author of the work at hand?” So we look to archeology and other historical writing. We compare them to the work we are dealing with.
You will readily see that the conclusions we come to are based on the evidence outside of our preferences. Hence, the conclusions are called “objective.” Is it possible that some of the conclusions are wrong? Yes. This is a inductive methodology, not deductive, so we never reach 100% certainty. But to reject a conclusion that is based on the evidence for one that is based on our preferences is irrational. Once again, what we mean by irrationality is a holding a conclusion that goes against the evidence.
But your attack on objectivity and histography seems to be something more. You seem to be headed to the conclusion that I predicted a while back, namely that the atheist must reject all of history in order to get rid of the resurrection. This is simply because if the atheist allows any objective methodology in and can say anything about the history of that period, the resurrection comes crashing down on their heads. That is because the is so much more quality evidence for the resurrection than virtually anything other event of the period that the resurrection cannot be avoided, if anything else is accepted.
Paul wrote:
The Sander’s criteria meet that definition of objective. Yes, there is a “subject” involved in drawing the conclusion, that would be you, but the conclusion itself is not based on a like or dislike, but is supported by the evidence. We have a means outside of ourselves that gives us a gauge or history-o-meter by which we determine if there is a sufficient quantity of quality evidence. But as I have said on many occasions, I am not tied to Sander’s method. I have offered you the option of choosing any historical criteria that does not base its conclusion on your preferences or likes, that has been or is currently used by historians, which can at least in principle be met and does not disprove what we already know about history. We only got into the Sander’s method because you were unable to come up with one.
Allow me to go over the Sander’s criteria and show you why it is objective:
The bibliographical test attempts to answer the question, “Do we have an accurate copy of what was originally written or how accurate is the copy we have?” To draw our conclusion we look to texts and dating of the texts, comparing the texts based on the rules of textual criticism to draw our conclusions.
We do not say, “Do these documents agree with me and my points of view?” then make a decision based on that.
The next two tests, the internal and external authorship tests, try to answer the question, “are the authors are people who have something to say about the subject they are writing about.” We look internally into the documents to see if they make claims about the author and externally to see if there is anybody who knew the author or ran in his circle that can tell us about author.
The last two tests try to answer the question, “compared to artifacts and other reliable writers of the period, how accurate is the author of the work at hand?” So we look to archeology and other historical writing. We compare them to the work we are dealing with.
You will readily see that the conclusions we come to are based on the evidence outside of our preferences. Hence, the conclusions are called “objective.” Is it possible that some of the conclusions are wrong? Yes. This is a inductive methodology, not deductive, so we never reach 100% certainty. But to reject a conclusion that is based on the evidence for one that is based on our preferences is irrational. Once again, what we mean by irrationality is a holding a conclusion that goes against the evidence.
But your attack on objectivity and histography seems to be something more. You seem to be headed to the conclusion that I predicted a while back, namely that the atheist must reject all of history in order to get rid of the resurrection. This is simply because if the atheist allows any objective methodology in and can say anything about the history of that period, the resurrection comes crashing down on their heads. That is because the is so much more quality evidence for the resurrection than virtually anything other event of the period that the resurrection cannot be avoided, if anything else is accepted.
Paul wrote:
|
“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.”
|
Historical investigation will validate whatever there is sufficient evidence for, regardless of the size of the event. The methodology doesn’t discriminate because of the size of the event or to your whims, which is exactly what your above statement is.
Paul wrote:
Paul wrote:
|
“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.)”
|
Paul, you offered these letters as letters of “support.” But what were they supporting? You admit that they did not aid you in the challenge, so you found no support from them there. I read the letters and all I saw were letters of moral support, “atta boy” letters. They answered nothing. So, my comment for this kind of “support” is that they are in the same boat as you are. They have no objective means for determining what “extraordinary evidence” would look like. They offer no methodology for doing history that meets the guidelines. The only thing they offer is their mere opinion that you are right and I am wrong. So, what value are they? That is what my comment was meant to convey. I hope these extended comments clear this up.
Paul wrote:
“I used your methodology, and it failed.”
Actually, you simply gave your opinion on the remaining criteria and then claim it failed, just as you did with the bibliographical test at the beginning. You were shown to be wrong there and if we go through the other tests, you will be shown to be wrong again. But as I said before, the only reason we are using Sander’s criteria is because you could not come up with one and you demanded that I provide a methodology.
If you would like to go through the rest of the criteria, I will be happy to do so, as I indicated in my last post. As of yet you haven’t agreed to that. But much of your present response seems to be getting into the area of epistemology, our theory of knowledge. Perhaps you would like to go into that discussion instead? If you would prefer to do that, let’s both write a closing post to this debate and we can start another on epistemology, or rather your lack of being to have one, able as an atheist.
The choice is yours.
Regards,
Brady
Paul wrote:
“I used your methodology, and it failed.”
Actually, you simply gave your opinion on the remaining criteria and then claim it failed, just as you did with the bibliographical test at the beginning. You were shown to be wrong there and if we go through the other tests, you will be shown to be wrong again. But as I said before, the only reason we are using Sander’s criteria is because you could not come up with one and you demanded that I provide a methodology.
If you would like to go through the rest of the criteria, I will be happy to do so, as I indicated in my last post. As of yet you haven’t agreed to that. But much of your present response seems to be getting into the area of epistemology, our theory of knowledge. Perhaps you would like to go into that discussion instead? If you would prefer to do that, let’s both write a closing post to this debate and we can start another on epistemology, or rather your lack of being to have one, able as an atheist.
The choice is yours.
Regards,
Brady
Jacobsen - Round 10
Well, Mr. Lenardos, I must say, I was highly impressed with your Round 10! I guess I must apologize for being so snotty in Round 9. You did an outstanding job of putting aside some of my unfortunate attacks and put forth a good defense of yourself and your position. Of course, you are still utterly 100% wrong--but hey, you still did a great job! J
Now, after agreeing you did a great job, but claim you are still 100% wrong, I suppose the burden now shifts back to me. You have "raised the bar" on your end, so it is up to me to come up to the plate. Okay, that is fine. I intend to "raise the bar" on my end as well. I promise I will not resort to attacks like I did last time, my apologies. Now let's get down to business!
You argue the scientific method isn't applicable to history, and therefore we must use the historical method. I wonder if you would even consider history to be a science at all? If not, what would it be?
Anyway, even if I accept this much, your assertion that the scientific method isn't applicable to history, and we need to use "the historical method", the problem is, there is no cut-and-dry "historical method". You have proposed the Sanders' method. Which I don't have too much problem with, other than to note it is just one possible method, there is simply no single "The Historical Method." And to also note that it is NOT objective, to which I will cover next.
In your defense of your claim that Sanders' method is objective, you say:
Well, Mr. Lenardos, I must say, I was highly impressed with your Round 10! I guess I must apologize for being so snotty in Round 9. You did an outstanding job of putting aside some of my unfortunate attacks and put forth a good defense of yourself and your position. Of course, you are still utterly 100% wrong--but hey, you still did a great job! J
Now, after agreeing you did a great job, but claim you are still 100% wrong, I suppose the burden now shifts back to me. You have "raised the bar" on your end, so it is up to me to come up to the plate. Okay, that is fine. I intend to "raise the bar" on my end as well. I promise I will not resort to attacks like I did last time, my apologies. Now let's get down to business!
You argue the scientific method isn't applicable to history, and therefore we must use the historical method. I wonder if you would even consider history to be a science at all? If not, what would it be?
Anyway, even if I accept this much, your assertion that the scientific method isn't applicable to history, and we need to use "the historical method", the problem is, there is no cut-and-dry "historical method". You have proposed the Sanders' method. Which I don't have too much problem with, other than to note it is just one possible method, there is simply no single "The Historical Method." And to also note that it is NOT objective, to which I will cover next.
In your defense of your claim that Sanders' method is objective, you say:
|
The bibliographical test attempts to answer the question, “Do we have an accurate copy of what was originally written or how accurate is the copy we have?” To draw our conclusion we look to texts and dating of the texts, comparing the texts based on the rules of textual criticism to draw our conclusions.
We do not say, “Do these documents agree with me and my points of view?” then make a decision based on that. |
You seem to not understand what it is for something to be "objective". To be "objective" means that the measurement is the same independent of the person doing the observation. If I look at a voltmeter and it says 10 volts, then if you look at the voltmeter it will still say 10 volts. Of course nothing is absolutely objective, one or the other of us could be delusional or have bad eyesight and say the meter says something other than 10 volts. But if 99.9% of the people who look at the voltmeter all agree it says 10 volts, we feel that we can say with confidence that the voltmeter says 10 volts is an objective measure. But if you ask 10 people how certain we can be that text 'A' is an accurate representation of the original, we will get 10 answers. How certain the accuracy of a document is, is SUBJECTIVE, each person asked that question will give a different answer.
The other items of the Sanders' method have the same problems. For example, you go on to say, "the last two tests try to answer the question, 'compared to artifacts..." I didn't need to bother quoting any further. Once you say "compared to something else" you are immediately talking subjective. "Objective" means the measurement is independent of what anything else might measure! If a battery reads 10 volts, it reads 10 volts no matter what any other battery reads. So, yes, Sanders' method is SUBJECTIVE! I don't have any problem with that, for history IS SUBJECTIVE. What I have a problem with, is your trying to corner me into producing an objective measure when there is none to be produced, not even your own.
I argued that history cannot validate minutiae, to which your replied, "historical investigation will validate whatever there is sufficient evidence for, regardless of the size of the event." The problem is, small events cannot, by definition, have sufficient evidence or they wouldn't be small events! I used the Holocaust as an example. Of course it is a recent event, so it isn't really at all comparable. But even if the Holocaust happened 2,000 years ago, assuming similar numbers of people impacted, would have almost certainly still left large amounts of evidence. Something that is reported by four people (the Gospel writers) could never, ever be considered a large amount of evidence, particularly when there is also contrarian evidence!
By the way, I like your quote, "once again, what we mean by irrationality is a holding a conclusion that goes against the evidence." Very interesting. I've got very strong evidence that people do not rise from the dead. I could produce a multitude of doctors who would all attest to this. I can also produce lots of evidence that religious beliefs are very often completely erroneous. Therefore, it would seem that by your definition of irrationality, holding onto a belief that a man rose from the dead two thousand years ago is irrational is it not?
To continue, in speaking of the letters by Tobin and Doherty, you said:
The other items of the Sanders' method have the same problems. For example, you go on to say, "the last two tests try to answer the question, 'compared to artifacts..." I didn't need to bother quoting any further. Once you say "compared to something else" you are immediately talking subjective. "Objective" means the measurement is independent of what anything else might measure! If a battery reads 10 volts, it reads 10 volts no matter what any other battery reads. So, yes, Sanders' method is SUBJECTIVE! I don't have any problem with that, for history IS SUBJECTIVE. What I have a problem with, is your trying to corner me into producing an objective measure when there is none to be produced, not even your own.
I argued that history cannot validate minutiae, to which your replied, "historical investigation will validate whatever there is sufficient evidence for, regardless of the size of the event." The problem is, small events cannot, by definition, have sufficient evidence or they wouldn't be small events! I used the Holocaust as an example. Of course it is a recent event, so it isn't really at all comparable. But even if the Holocaust happened 2,000 years ago, assuming similar numbers of people impacted, would have almost certainly still left large amounts of evidence. Something that is reported by four people (the Gospel writers) could never, ever be considered a large amount of evidence, particularly when there is also contrarian evidence!
By the way, I like your quote, "once again, what we mean by irrationality is a holding a conclusion that goes against the evidence." Very interesting. I've got very strong evidence that people do not rise from the dead. I could produce a multitude of doctors who would all attest to this. I can also produce lots of evidence that religious beliefs are very often completely erroneous. Therefore, it would seem that by your definition of irrationality, holding onto a belief that a man rose from the dead two thousand years ago is irrational is it not?
To continue, in speaking of the letters by Tobin and Doherty, you said:
|
Paul, you offered these letters as letters of “support.” But what were they supporting? You admit that they did not aid you in the challenge, so you found no support from them there. I read the letters and all I saw were letters of moral support, “atta boy” letters.
|
Hoo-boy, talk about only seeing what you want to see... Doherty's response was indeed pretty modest, but Tobin linked to four of his articles (which are each quite extensive articles) with good evidence for why the Gospels decidedly do not meet Sanders' method. I conceded that Tobin did not support the specific challenge about taking another historical figure of the time. But even so, his letter does indeed provide great support on the issue of the Gospels not meeting the requirements of Sanders' method.
You then say,
You then say,
|
If you would like to go through the rest of the criteria, I will be happy to do so, as I indicated in my last post. As of yet you haven’t agreed to that.
|
I thought my strong challenge to "try putting up some evidence" was indeed a charge for you to put up your evidence for the rest of the criteria. As far as your suggestion to discuss "epistemology," I don't think we are done yet with this discussion. By the way, what about my suggestion of having a poll about who is winning?
P.S. I tried to order The Presuppositions of Critical History by Francis H. Bradley from amazon.com, but it is out of print, and they didn't have any used copies available at this time. Basically, I understand that among the points made by Bradley is some of the points I have been claiming, that historians have to assume that the laws of physics don't break, or anything goes.
P.S. I tried to order The Presuppositions of Critical History by Francis H. Bradley from amazon.com, but it is out of print, and they didn't have any used copies available at this time. Basically, I understand that among the points made by Bradley is some of the points I have been claiming, that historians have to assume that the laws of physics don't break, or anything goes.
Follow the 'Next' link to the next round.
