It's not a logical fallacy to say one belief is true and another false.
Lumpenproletariat's latest post is self-titled "Belief in Christ is based in reason and evidence, not superstition or prejudice or flawed logic."
Which is interesting to me, because as yet no evidence has been presented beyond anonymous tales . . .
That a document is "anonymous" does not disqualify it as a source for history. The
Royal Frankish Annals are accepted as a source for history, even though they're anonymous, and also they contain miracle stories ("tales"):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Frankish_Annals
The Royal Frankish Annals (Latin: Annales regni Francorum; also Annales Laurissenses maiores and German: Reichsannalen) are Latin annals composed in Carolingian Francia, recording year-by-year the state of the monarchy from 741 (the death of Mayor of the Palace Charles Martel) to 829 (the beginning of the crisis of Louis the Pious). Their authorship is unknown, though Wilhelm von Giesebrecht suggested that Arno of Salzburg was the author of an early section of the Annaes Laurissenses majores surviving in the copy at Lorsch Abbey. The Annals are believed to have been composed in successive sections by different authors, and then compiled. The depth of knowledge regarding court affairs suggests that the annals were written by persons close to the king, and their initial reluctance to comment on Frankish defeats betrays an official design for use as Carolingian propaganda. Though the information contained within is heavily influenced by authorial intent in favor of the Franks, the annals remain a crucial source on the political and military history of the reign of Charlemagne.
So a document is still accepted for its historical value, despite being anonymous. When you imply there's something unacceptable about an "anonymous" source, you're "making up shit."
. . . tales making claims about extraordinary events . . .
Calling them "tales" is just name-calling. This is not a basis for determining the truth of what happened.
You're supposed to make a case why these accounts or stories are not credible, but when you make this case by assuming they're fiction, by calling them "tales," then you're committing the fallacy of putting your conclusion into your premise or into step one of your reasoning. You're supposed to
arrive at the conclusion, not start out with this conclusion as a step in the reasoning toward the conclusion.
And your premise that all claims about "extraordinary events" are automatically ruled out is arbitrary. If one does not accept that premise, then the possibility of extraordinary events is allowed, and we can consider the evidence for the events.
Extra evidence is required for miracle events, and we do have extra evidence, extra sources, for the Jesus events. For most historical facts of the period we have fewer sources than we have for the Jesus events (not the
major historical facts, but the millions of
minor facts for which there are only 1 or 2 or 3 sources.
. . . the writers never claim to have witnessed (and never claim to have talked to witnesses), . . .
But that's true for MOST historical facts from ancient history. Only a small minority of the historical record for that time is from authors who were direct witnesses, or who interviewed direct witnesses. Obviously it does not disqualify an account that the writer was not a direct witness or did not interview direct witnesses.
. . . and which evidently grew more fantastic with each retelling. Evidence of that caliber is not evidence.
It is too evidence. There's nothing wrong with evidence or accounts which then got retold and added to later. Those later additions do not negate the credibility of the earlier accounts. And the later additions are not necessarily wrong. Maybe some are inaccurate, but others are accurate and add improvements to the earlier version. You can't just throw out sources because they either got added to later or because they added something to an earlier account.
An
advantage with the later account is that the later author may have acquired additional information not available to the earlier one.
So it's arbitrary to exclude a source only because some later content got added to the earlier.
Later accounts, or later versions, or later changes in content do have an appropriate place in telling us the historical events. Even if there are elements which were added later and have less credibility, there is no pattern in the gospel accounts of the events becoming "more fantastic with each retelling." There are no examples of this that have any significance.
Lifting it out of the context of literally millions of other claims of fantastic events that permeated mythology for thousands of years and arguing that it's the only one that's actually true is special pleading, a form of flawed logic.
No, there's nothing "flawed" about showing that one account is more reliable than another. There's nothing "flawed" about believing one account because it's only 30-40 years removed from the reported event, but rejecting another because it's more than 1000 years after the reported event. What's "flawed" about that?
You mean we have to judge ALL the "fantastic events" claims the same, and brand ALL of them true, or ALL of them false? Why? Why isn't it possible to deal with them individually, distinguish them, and judge some of them to be more credible than others?
Are you pronouncing that ALL claims of anything unusual are automatically false? Can't we allow the possibility that some of them could be true? Why do ALL claims of anything unusual have to be pronounced as false?
And who is saying "it's the only one that's actually true"? Probably some other miracle claims are true. You're saying we cannot pick and choose between them? Why not? Though most miracle claims are false, some are probably true, and there's no reason we can't judge them individually.
For the Jesus miracle acts we have evidence, giving us reason to believe them, or to regard them as a reasonable possibility. Whereas for most ancient miracle claims there is an absence of evidence, because they obviously were produced by the mythologizing process. There's no "flaw" in saying one claim is true and the others false, if that's what the evidence shows.
We can look at every case and judge it individually. And if there is evidence for some other such claims, then they too might be true, or one might reasonably believe it. So give the example. I think that in modern times we do have some cases for which there is reasonable evidence, i.e., of "miracle" events.
And it's likely there were some cases of genuine "miracle" events but for which we don't have the evidence. Though we can't believe it without evidence, we can still recognize that there probably are some such cases.
There's nothing wrong with saying we have evidence in this one case, e.g., the Jesus miracle acts, but that evidence is lacking in most or all other cases, or all the cases we know about. It all depends on what we find when we investigate each case. We can just follow whatever the evidence shows.
You can't start out with the premise that it isn't fair to have evidence in this one case only and no evidence in other cases. If this is the only case for which there is evidence, then so be it! Give the other cases for which you think there also is evidence, i.e., documents attesting to the events, such as we have for the Jesus miracle acts. It's not "special pleading" to just follow what the evidence shows. If you have other evidence indicating a different conclusion, then provide that evidence.
Superstition is a vaguely defined term that includes any number of beliefs that attribute favorable or unfavorable outcomes to unseen spirits who influence our world. It is not necessary to knock on wood when observing that some unfortunate possibility hasn't occurred, yet otherwise rational people do so even today for the same reasons others feel inclined to pray for a safe trip in spite of a lifetime's observations that safe trips are had with exactly the same probabilities whether prayers were uttered or not.
This might be true, but it has not been scientifically proved.
The evidence suggests that superstitions permeate many religious traditions today and Christianity is a prime example. Christians generally feel the number 666 is bad mojo.
No, most of them don't. This is silly. And that number in the Book of Revelation might be a mistake.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_the_Beast
Many wear amulets of the cross around their necks, or small statuettes of the virgin Mary or Jesus on the dashboard of their cars feeling these things protect them from evil.
Most of them probably don't believe that. Actually everyone is at least a little "superstitious" in one way or another.
The entire myth of salvation is based around the premise that by performing certain ceremonial acts or uttering an oath of belief in Jesus one can escape a fate of extreme agony. That's superstition on steroids.
Those who were healed by Jesus did escape from their agony. They didn't have to perform an act or even utter anything. In some cases they did an act, but it was only their faith that was necessary. You can call it "superstition," but if it worked, what difference does it make what you call it?
Prejudice is a vaguely defined term as well, but in this context it is being used in the sense that nearly every devotee of any given religion has in common with devotees of other religions that they believe theirs to be uniquely true while others are either less true (heretical) or downright false (Shiva is not a real god).
This isn't necessarily "prejudice." One might be wrong in believing their religion is better or truer than others, but this error is not necessarily "prejudice." It's likely that some religions are actually better than others, or truer, or superior in some way. It's not necessarily "prejudice" that a believer thinks this. In some cases they're right -- their religion IS superior to the other.
Conduct experiments such as Elijah's alleged "Fire from heaven alter-ignition" test, where it can be demonstrated that a god with extraordinary powers can be interacted with and predictably responds and we've got something that is worth consideration.
That did happen in the case of the Jesus healing miracles. It was predictable, because he would arrive in a certain town and they brought the sick and he cured them. Within that situation or context it was predictable and repeatable. It was repeated several times.
But if "repeatable" or "predictable" means that he had to stay and keep doing it forever, for centuries, down to the present time, then it was not "repeatable" or is not for us now. But it matters that this power was demonstrated during that time period, before hundreds of witnesses, to benefit those victims who were healed, even if it was limited to that point in history.
There was the element of "repeatability" or "predictability" at that time, which makes it "worth consideration." You can scoff at this as worthless unless the same power is extended into the future to everyone at all times and places, but you can scoff at many things that are not directly present to us and for which all we have is evidence of it having happened at some other time or place.
The important question is whether the events did happen, whether this power really was demonstrated at that time or was not. It matters whether this really happened, even if it does not happen today. Just because you can scoff at it does not answer the question whether it did or did not happen. If it did, then it does matter even to later generations who know of it only as a possibility and a source of hope for something in the future. It's easy to scoff at it, but there's nothing illogical about it if the event in question did really happen.
Otherwise we've got nothing but testimonies from satisfied customers, the same thing you'd see on a Sham-wow commercial.
We may not even have that. Some "testimonies" may be fraudulent, or
probably are. But even if we don't have anything other than evidence of the past event, as far back as 2000 years ago, it still makes a difference whether that event really happened, or whether that power was real. If it really was a one-time event only, and never can be repeated again, ever, in any way, then it offers no hope. But there's no need to assume that. Rather, what matters is whether it's true that it happened this one time for which we have this evidence.
Despite our scoffing instinct and demand for immediate direct gratification, it still does matter whether this event in history did happen. There might be a reason why it was limited to this one time, because our belief or hope has some intrinsic value. The instinct to scoff is not a reason to disbelieve it, but is only a low-level impulse producing the disbelief.
Every argument you have presented thus far has been guilty of special pleading (Jesus is the only one of the many stories that is true), . . .
You're misusing the term "special pleading." It cannot be a logical flaw to simply say a certain claim is true because we have evidence for it, while another claim is not true because it lacks evidence. That in itself is not a logical flaw. It depends on what the claimed evidence is. You have to discredit the evidence.
I've shown that we have evidence for the Jesus miracles, from written accounts near to the time of the events, whereas we do not have such evidence for Apollonius of Tyana, e.g. Unless you show that we do have evidence for Apollonius of Tyana, then my claim is legitimate -- that there's evidence for the one claim but not for the other -- and there is no flaw. It's not automatically a flaw to say one claim is more likely true than the other. Giving it a fancy name like "special pleading" does not prove that a flaw is taking place.
. . . circular reasoning (the stories are evidence that the stories are true), . . .
But the written accounts of past events ARE the main evidence that the events happened. What is the evidence if not the written accounts saying the event happened? How is that circular reasoning? Name any facts of history we know of that are not known by means of the "stories" written, the documents, telling us those facts.
Why is it that all other facts of history can be known by means of written accounts, but not the facts about the Jesus events? Why is it that only for this case is it called "circular reasoning" to use written accounts to establish the historical events?
Only the Jesus events are condemned as non-historical because they are known from written accounts, which is condemned as "circular reasoning." But knowledge of other events is also based on written accounts, and this is accepted as "evidence" and is not condemned as "circular reasoning."
For all historical events "the stories" from the historical documents are evidence for "the stories," and no one can say why this reasoning is OK for all other events but is "circular reasoning" in the case of the Jesus events. Other than to put the gospel accounts into a special category as the only documents ever in history which are rejected for determining historical events.
No documents other than the gospel accounts are put into this special condemned category, reserved for this one group of documents to be excluded. No one can name ANY other documents ever which are similarly rejected for determining historical events.
Homer is not totally rejected for historical events. It's a legitimate source for the Trojan War even if most of the details are rejected as fiction. But one reason much of it is rejected is that Homer was centuries removed from the events in question, whereas the gospel accounts are very close to the time of the alleged events, and so have to be taken more seriously.
Likewise much of Livy is doubtful as to the literal details, and yet this is a legitimate source for the early history of Rome, and the reader tries to separate the fact from the fiction. The "stories" are evidence for what happened, but the fictional element is also recognized.
And Livy is removed centuries from the actual events, so that his accounts are less reliable for their events than the gospel accounts are for the Jesus events of about 30 AD. So, just as it is not "circular reasoning" to use Livy for the early Roman history, it is also not "circular reasoning" to use the gospel accounts for the events of 30 AD. Rather, the accounts are read critically, with a degree of credibility, but also with awareness of the fictional and legend-building elements.
. . . red herring arguments (Discounting the testimony of Justin Martyr that the Jesus myth was so similar to the myths of the "Sons of Jupiter" . . .
No, there was no such similarity between the "Jesus myth" and the pagan myths.
Was Justin Martyr lying when he said there are parallels to the pagan myths?
I showed earlier that Justin's
Apology really provides NO SIMILARITY between the Jesus events and the earlier pagan myths. All his examples are reviewed in these two posts:
Any use of quotes from Justin Martyr's First Apology is invalid . . .
Again, Christians are killed for being Christians:
At some points Justin implies that there are parallels between the Christian beliefs and the pagan myths. But the only time he says this is when he's trying to persuade Romans to stop persecuting Christians, and he draws the analogy between them only to argue that Christians are innocent just as pagan worshipers are innocent.
The truth is that there is NO similarity between the Jesus and pagan stories. You cannot give one example of a similarity. All the analogies drawn by Justin are false -- there is no similarity. We can go over them again one by one. The only reason Justin suggests some similarities is that he's trying to persuade Romans to stop persecuting Christians. Except for this he makes no claim of any parallel between them. Each "similarity" he suggests is false -- there is no "similarity" in any example he offers. You have to look at each one. In each case the parallel is false.
He has a motive for making the false suggestion of the "similarities" -- he's defending Christians against persecution, and says they're just as innocent as the pagan believers whose myths are "similar" -- but they really are not similar. And Justin almost certainly did not believe there were any real parallels.
So was he lying? Yes, but in this case lying is not wrong. He was trying do save lives, trying to stop persecutions in which Christians were being wrongly killed.
Isn't it OK to lie to storm-troopers banging on your door, asking if there are any Jews inside, and you are hiding some Jews in your house?
There's a good chance that some readers of Justin Martyr's
First Apology were persuaded by it that Christians were no more dangerous than believers in the pagan gods, and this may have led to a reduction of the attacks on them and some lives being spared.
. . . that the similarities were striking by arguing that Jupiter wasn't an actual human being - WTF), . . .
He might have been a human originally -- we don't know. But there is no "similarity" of Jupiter to Jesus or to anything Christians believe. It would be better to compare Jesus to another known human from a known time in history rather than to a deity figure who might not have existed and for whom all the written record appeared at least 1000 years after he existed if he did exist.
. . . goalpost shifting, . . .
At worst, this is just a personal flaw in the one arguing, not in the argument. It only means the argument had to be adjusted to correct something not properly worded earlier. So, just pick up the argument from after the adjustment.
There's nothing wrong with adjusting one's belief, or statement of it, if something comes up in the argument that requires a change or a clarification that hadn't been stated earlier.
. . . unsound syllogism (such as arguing that truth is established via batting average), . . .
The "batting average" question has to be considered. Is there reason to believe Jesus was sometimes unable to heal a victim? Have there been would-be healers who had a limited ability to perform a cure, so that maybe they were successful 10% of the time, or 20% or 30%? This question has to be raised -- you can't run away from it just because it gets "messy" instead of nice and neat. That there might be degrees of this power to heal or do miracles cannot be swept aside. It's obvious that some healers/practitioners have an ability to offer a psychological benefit which in some cases has a real effect on the afflicted one's physical condition.
. . . argument by ignorance (not knowing that Joseph Smiths miracles were much better attested than Jesus's), . . .
But they were not. We can easily explain the JS alleged miracles as a product of mythologizing. The only sources for his alleged miracles were his direct disciples exclusively, who had been influenced by his charisma over several years. There are easily millions of miracle stories produced this way, by the direct disciples of the guru.
And Smith was a well-publicized famous/notorious celebrity whose widespread reputation led to much publicizing and mythologizing over a career of 20 years. And he had an already-existing religious tradition within which to develop his legend, basing all his miracles on the earlier Jesus hero, which makes it much easier for a charismatic to establish his reputation and attract disciples who attest to his miracles.
When the emergence of the miracle stories can easily be explained as caused by the normal mythologizing process, as in the JS example, then the evidence is much weaker and can be discounted.
. . . unsound premise (arguing that the stories claims that the events they cover happened in recent history is a significant criterion in historical criticism) . . .
This IS a significant criterion for separating the fact from fiction -- the closer proximity of the writer to the events he writes about. That the written accounts of the Jesus miracles appear in only 30-70 years after the events greatly increases the credibility of these accounts over the cases where the written accounts don't appear until 200 years later, or many centuries later.
Historians do give greater weight to an account which appears closer to the time when the alleged events happened. It's amazing that anyone would have trouble understanding this.
. . . and possibly many other forms of flawed logic that escape my memory just now.
In short you have presented neither reason nor evidence. You have presented superstitions, prejudice and flawed logic. The shoe fits.
There is nothing flawed or superstitious or prejudiced about using documents from the time to determine what happened at the time, like we do for determining all historical events. If the rules of logic forbid us to find the events of history by going back to documents written near to the time in question, then ALL history is logically flawed and has to be scrapped.
