Comments on The Secular Outpost: Does Craig Demonstrate a Fallacy in Hume?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what Craig sa...

2012-02-15T11:09:14.692-06:00

Please correct me if I am wrong, but what Craig says in his written work (and in the debate with Bart Ehrman) is that Hume's in principle argument against the identification of miracles is demostrably fallacious and he goes on to show this in terms of Bayesian calculus. Craig explicitly says that Hume had an excuse because the probability calculus hadn't been developed in his day, but that neo-Humenas like yourself who still press Hume's in prinicple objection (as you did in your debate with Craig)no longer can rationally do so. Moreover, Craig only brings up the specific evidence for the resurrection because in the debate, and in his written work, he is defending a case for the resurrection, and he uses it as an illustration of the 'abstract' Bayesian formula to bring it down to earth so to speak. So, he is not unfairly criticizing Hume for not offering any specific considerations against the evidence for the resurrection (Indeed, the facts Craig uses in his case weren't even considered historical facts in Hume's day because the historical criteria used to establish them today weren't even developed yet), nor is he anachronistically accussing Hume of misusing Baye's theorem. But even if he was, who cares. What matter is whether Hume's IN PRINCIPLE argument against the identification of miracles is demostrably fallacious and you concede that it is. You then go on to accuse Hume's critics, and I suppose you are mostly talking about Craig given the title of your post here, of unfairly criticising Hume of a weaker argument then he in fact made because people may have been deceived, they may be lying, etc. But that is to conflate HUme's in fact objections against the identification of miracles with his in principle objection. Craig, and other critics who you unchartiably accuse of straw manning Hume, all admit that Hume's 4 in fact objections have some force, but that isn't what is at issue. What is at issue is Hume's in principle objection and that as you admit is demostrably fallacious. I find this to be a significant development and I am puzzled by your concluding comment that this amounts to nothing. Really?! I doubt you really mean that. In any case, it would be interesting to see if Hume'e in fact objections, general in character, can be used to undercut, or even rebut, the historical case for the resurrection when we look at the specifics. Perhaps you will be bold enough to try and show that they do.

Patrick: As for Jesus, however, his disciples k...

2012-02-06T19:07:28.999-06:00
Patrick: As for Jesus, however, his disciples knew him very well, so it is very unlikely that they would have mistaken another man for Jesus.
Is that why the gospels record his disciples and followers not recognising him?

Carr, there are two possibilities: when Paul wrot...

2012-01-22T05:04:25.117-06:00
Carr,
there are two possibilities: when Paul wrote the letter to the Romans has forgotten that he had personally met Jews who heard Jesus or, I repeat, someone has to read better Romans 10.

In the Roman trial the witness in order to save himself had to say that nothing was true. Jesus was condemned because he refused to deny explicitly the allegations.

DOMICS Regarding Romans 10, please read the whole ...

2012-01-22T01:44:03.473-06:00
DOMICS
Regarding Romans 10, please read the whole piece to understand what Paul says. Paul with Romans is directing to Jews and Gentile people living in Greek and Roman world. He is not talking about Jews of the Palestine living at the time of Jesus. Paul itself says to have meet in Jerusalem first hand Jewish testimony...

CARR
This is all just made up.

There is not one word in Romans 10 which claims Paul is not talking about all Jews, no matter where they are.

You can imagine the Roman trials of witnesses for the resurrection.

ROMAN INTERROGATOR
Confess you are one of those Christians.

TORTURE VICTIM
No, you have the wrong person. I have never seen Jesus.

ROMAN
Liar! Confess you are a Christian.

(I now skip the next 10 minutes. Think of the violence in the Passion of the Christ.)

TORTURE VICTIM
Yes, yes I saw Jesus rise from the grave. I can tell you the names of my friends who saw him. Please just kill me.

Steven Carr: “And, of course, once a bandwagon of ...

2012-01-21T14:20:29.107-06:00
Steven Carr: “And, of course, once a bandwagon of rumours started, there would always be people jumping on the bandwagon and testifying to having personally seen Elvis, sorry, John the Baptist, or do I mean Jesus?”

Those people who regarded Jesus as John the Baptist having been raised from the dead obviously didn’t know the latter very well, as they would otherwise have seen that Jesus didn’t look like him. As for Jesus, however, his disciples knew him very well, so it is very unlikely that they would have mistaken another man for Jesus.

Steven Carr: “Paul claimed to have gone to the third Heaven. Lunatics don't count as credible witnesses, unless you believe Paul was sane when he reported his trip to Heaven.”

If one assumes that there can be visions caused by God one doesn’t have to arrive at the conclusion that Paul was insane.

Carr, what a strange comparison ... the witch is t...

2012-01-21T04:35:52.363-06:00
Carr,
what a strange comparison ...
the witch is threatened and he risks his life; the witness of a resurrection risks instead of being ridiculed and not believed (even killed if considered blasphemous). This happened at that time and today.

Regarding Romans 10, please read the whole piece to understand what Paul says. Paul with Romans is directing to Jews and Gentile people living in Greek and Roman world. He is not talking about Jews of the Palestine living at the time of Jesus. Paul itself says to have meet in Jerusalem first hand Jewish testimony...

Of course, there are cases where people have testi...

2012-01-21T03:27:14.093-06:00
Of course, there are cases where people have testified first-hand to sorcery, even when they knew they would be killed for admitting to being a witch.

Why would they Die for a lie?

What principle does Patrick use to discredit Christian testimony of child-witches?

Especially when children admit to being witches...

PATRICK That this man was John the Baptist having...

2012-01-21T03:15:52.755-06:00
PATRICK
That this man was John the Baptist having been raised from the dead was an interpretation of these experiences.

CARR
No , that is your intepretation of the Bible.

PATRICK
No one claimed to have seen John the Baptist being raised from the dead.

CARR
Another argument from silence. How can an argument from silence be valid?

Craig would point out that his god would be expected to raise religiously significant people like the baptist.

And, of course, once a bandwagon of rumours started, there would always be people jumping on the bandwagon and testifying to having personally seen Elvis, sorry, John the Baptist, or do I mean Jesus?

Hard to keep track of all these people claimed to have cheated death.

By the way, did any Christian in the first century put his name on a document claiming he personally saw a flesh and blood Jesus?

Paul claimed to have gone to the third Heaven. Lunatics don't count as credible witnesses, unless you believe Paul was sane when he reported his trip to Heaven.

Hume’s argument is fallacious because it confuses ...

2012-01-21T02:58:28.943-06:00
Hume’s argument is fallacious because it confuses the probability that someone lies or is deceived in general with the probability that someone lies or is deceived with respect to certain events or phenomena. Let’s assume that for an average person the probability that he lies or is deceived is 1:50. This means that out of 50 statements he makes one is not true, either because he is lying or because he is wrong. In that case any testimony to an event whose occurrence has a probability lower that 1:50 could never be regarded as true.

Steven Carr: “How do rumours of something happening start unless at least 1 person had testified that something had happened?”

The idea that John the Baptist had been raised from the dead was indeed based on testimonies. It was the testimonies that there was a man working amazing miracles. That this man was John the Baptist having been raised from the dead was an interpretation of these experiences. No one claimed to have seen John the Baptist being raised from the dead.

Keith Parsons: “In general, as I noted in an earlier post, Hume considers that the “knavery and folly” of humans is such that miracle reports are often likely even where no miracle has occurred. Further, if this is Hume’s claim, it is obviously right, as, indeed, everyone who is not totally credulous will admit. No rational person believes more than a small fraction of the myriad miracle reports that infest historical records and tales. Even some evangelical scholars now doubt some biblical miracle reports (one, Michael Licona, was recently fired for doing so). Clearly, then, miracle reports do frequently arise when no miracle has occurred.”

It is important to make a distinction between different kinds of miracle accounts. There are miracle accounts based on testimony, those based on rumour or those that are stylistic devices and consequently not to be taken literally. Relevant here are only those accounts that fall into the first category.

As always Christians pop up to explain why their r...

2012-01-20T21:26:13.285-06:00
As always Christians pop up to explain why their religion is to be treated with different rules to everything else.

A Christian miracle has 'testimony', while other miracles have 'rumours'

How do rumours of something happening start unless at least 1 person had testified that something had happened?

There is a difference between rumours of miracles ...

2012-01-20T16:16:35.166-06:00
There is a difference between rumours of miracles and testimonies of miracles.

Domics has also missed the force of Craig's ar...

2012-01-20T04:37:44.812-06:00
Domics has also missed the force of Craig's argument.

Hume totally missed (according to Craig) the very low likelihood of Jews testifying that John the Baptist had been raised , if no miracle had occurred.

So, according to Craig, such testimony as recorded in the Bible is very unlikely to have happened.

So the Bible must be in error at that point.

Ask Paul why Christian converts were scoffing at t...

2012-01-20T04:35:41.618-06:00
Ask Paul why Christian converts were scoffing at the very idea of their god choosing to raise a corpse.

Paul does answer part of your question, although it goes without saying that he never mentions John the Baptist.

Why did Jews not believe in Jesus?

Romans 10
How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?

They did not believe in Jesus because they had never heard of him.

Jews only heard about Jesus from people sent to preach the Gospel about Jesus.

Obviously, Jews didn't get to hear about Jesus from general gossip among Jews. They only got to hear about Jesus from people sent to preach about him.

Carr, And why the Jews could believe in John's...

2012-01-20T04:24:31.639-06:00
Carr,
And why the Jews could believe in John's rising from the dead but did not believe in the Jesus' rising?

Matthew 6:14 King Herod heard about this, for Jesu...

2012-01-20T02:25:49.144-06:00
Matthew 6:14
King Herod heard about this, for Jesus’ name had become well known. Some were saying, “John the Baptist has been raised from the dead, and that is why miraculous powers are at work in him.”

How likely is that that 1st century Jews would claim that a recently unjustly killed preacher had been raised from the dead if no miracle had occurred?

According to Craig, the probability of the Bible being truthful is extremely low, because, according to Craig, it is a fallacy to think that Jews would testify about a preacher being raised from the dead, if it had not happened.

Now that I'm officially studying informal logi...

2012-01-19T20:20:59.150-06:00
Now that I'm officially studying informal logic and statistics (after 4 years of studying Jazz and Science) I find these things much easier to comprehend. Excellent post Keith (as always!)

Craig has proven many times that he doesn't be...

2012-01-19T14:47:29.216-06:00
Craig has proven many times that he doesn't believe in more than two possible answers to a question, therefore when he suggests a third alternative I think something fishy is going on!