Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Mark Smith


1. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178567 by Mark Smith on May 11, 2008 at 3:44 pm

By Jove I think he's got it! Treat the bible as you would any other example of its literary genre. Most sensible thing he's ever said on here.

Of course, the thing about historical writing is that when it makes fanciful claims without any corroborating evidence (or in the face of the evidence) then it positively behoves the historian to dismiss what it says as fabrication or misrepresentation. It also behoves him to treat it as a product of its own time and culture, rather than trying to pretend it has any relevance in modern society.

Absolutely. But just as important is the question of how you treat the metaphorical parts. Genesis 1 is clearly poetry and so, prima facie, metaphor. So why do believers say that its main character, god, is real? Surely he is metaphorical too! etc etc

2. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178552 by Mark Smith on May 11, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Artful

I really can't get over the fact that nobody on this site is willing to challenge Dawkins on the glaring inconsistncy here. The obvious question is this: if we get everything from natural selection, and natural selection "selects" for individual and group survival, where do we get the idea that we must transcend this natural impulse? If all nature is "red in tooth and claw", how on earth can human nature be exempted from that, from where on earth does it derive the inclination to fight against nature?

There are numerous reasons why your reasoning here is wrong. But that aside, your basic argument is 'If everything is caused by [natural selection], you must accept everything humans do is caused by [natural selection] and it is wrong to say we can get away from it'. Do you see where I am going with the square brackets? Just substitute with a certain three letter word that rhymes with cod. Now tell us why, if your reasoning above is valid, you don't accept god is to blame for every nasty thing humans do.

3. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177730 by Mark Smith on May 9, 2008 at 3:04 pm

fides
Again, listen to the interview: John Humphrys accepted that he (and by implication other journalists) does not question believers as to the evidence for their belief in god when he interviews them. You are attempting to shift the argument on to whether there are programmes etc that are critical of religion. This no doubt is an area for discussion (if a short one) but it is different from the point RD was making.

4. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177719 by Mark Smith on May 9, 2008 at 2:40 pm

fides

The evidence for his thoughts is well substantiated

Again you miss the point. It is evidence for god, not the archbishop's thoughts, that is at issue. John Humphrys understood the point when RD challenged him to put it to the archbishop. Listen to the interview again if you still don't get it.

Presumably most things the archbishop says when he is speaking in a public capacity are predicated on the assumption that (a particular) god exists. It follows that he should be challenged on why that assumption is valid.

5. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177564 by Mark Smith on May 9, 2008 at 10:07 am

Just listened to RD's interview and thought he pressed home his points superbly. Why should believers be allowed to get away with 'I just believe it' in the public forum?

6. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177131 by Mark Smith on May 8, 2008 at 4:02 pm

txpiper
Not that I am saying the number of beneficial mutations doesn't have to have been large. Obviously it does. But you are trying to give the appearance of making a mathematical argument without actually doing so. The mathematical argument would have to actually calculate the number of mutations needed and then do another calculation to show why there was not enough time for the first number to happen. What you are doing is mere assertion: assertion (1) is 'large number of mutations', assertion (2) is 'not enough time'. I, in opposition, assert that the extraordinarily massive number of DNA replications that have occurred throughout the last few billion years have provided ample opportunity for the requisite number of beneficial mutations. The argument from personal credulity, if you like.

7. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #177120 by Mark Smith on May 8, 2008 at 3:38 pm

txpiper
You are making the argument from personal incredulity and couching it in semi-mathematical language. Eg:

The facts about mutations and mutation rates are quite known, and those facts simply do not support the idea of DNA replication failures producing hundreds of millions of plant and animal species. Consider how many beneficial mutations would be required to get from the first supposed single-celled self-reproducing organism to a T-rex. It has to be an exponential number, and a large one at that.

You either need to do the maths to prove this or drop the argument. Claims like 'it has to be an exponential number' mean nothing. Either prove that it is an exponential number or don't say it. (In fact I'm betting you don't know enough about the relevant variables to set out the proof. If you do, then please do the whole world a favour and write what would no doubt be a ground-breaking scientific paper.)

8. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174860 by Mark Smith on May 3, 2008 at 5:04 pm

I think the first cause argument is probably the last refuge after other cause argument has been shot down. In itself it is not an argument for a God with any nice properties. If there is no harmony in the star,--assuming we still exist to contemplate about God,-- the first cause God may be either insane or an absentee God somewhat like a deadbeat dad, not a very good reason to build a religion around it.

Surely most people don't think it through in this way. Rather they conflate: 'there must be a first cause', 'that first cause is a god', 'that god must be the one the religious people around me believe in', so I will join them.

9. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174850 by Mark Smith on May 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm

Maybe it is just me, I don't think the apparent design of creatures is any stronger an argument for God than the order and harmony exhibited by celestial bodies. Indeed the ancients saw God in the stars, not in the chicken or the pig.

Thinking about it, when I hear people talking about, eg, stars etc being evidence for god, I suspect the simple fact of the universe's existence is what convinces them. That is, it is not so much 'order and harmony' as the First Cause argument that they go with.

10. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174845 by Mark Smith on May 3, 2008 at 4:31 pm

Maybe it is just me, I don't think the apparent design of creatures is any stronger an argument for God than the order and harmony exhibited by celestial bodies. Indeed the ancients saw God in the stars, not in the chicken or the pig.

That is a really interesting question. If Cartomancer is around it would be great to get his take on it in medieval times.

Paley's argument was that creatures were evidence of a designer, and Darwin responded. Perhaps in the ensuing controversy the 'creatures are evidence of design' argument got elevated to something it had not been before?

11. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174837 by Mark Smith on May 3, 2008 at 4:09 pm

Bonzai
The point about Darwin (or better, evolution by natural selection) is is that he/it provides a way of explaining apparently designed creatures without needing to invoke a designer/god. Without such an explanation, people felt such creatures were good evidence for a designer/god. Consequently, before evolution by natural selection it seemed reasonable to believe in such a god.

12. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174555 by Mark Smith on May 2, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Bizarro

but *please* tell me when the last time was that the BBC of all news networks supported supernaturalism?

If you are talking about news specifically, the BBC reports events but does not take a definitive position on supernatural interpretations. Are you suggesting it should do otherwise? If you aren't talking about the news, the BBC often has programmes which are positive about supernatural matters, while having others that take other perspectives. That is what it does.

13. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174550 by Mark Smith on May 2, 2008 at 4:17 pm

Retrozpekt
You seem like such a nice guy. But there is something about your attitude (I can't quite put my finger on it) that stops me wanting to explain anything to you.

14. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174547 by Mark Smith on May 2, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Bizarro
It is very encouraging that you are committed to intellectual integrity and to examination of your faith. But be aware (or should that be 'beware'?): going too far in that direction might lead you to new and exciting realms. Those values were among the main reasons why I concluded I could not continue to be a Christian; and on 'deconverting' I have found tremendous intellectual and other freedom.

15. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #174529 by Mark Smith on May 2, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Of course the 'real' answer to the problems posed by Dr Benway's video is that the supernova in question did not exist and instead God 'started' the light off in mid-space in the right places and time (ie 6000 years ago) so as give the appearance of the supernova. This is similar to the reason for the fossils: they aren't fossils of creatures that actually existed millions of years ago, rather God created them in situ.

16. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174458 by Mark Smith on May 2, 2008 at 12:57 pm

Bizarro
Ever been to church?
How do you feel about those preachers who hang their sermons on matters totally unrelated to god's existence? Do you stand up and say, 'How absurdly boorish of you reverend'?
Or how about the Bible. Do you find that boorish when it finds god in a whirlwind or an earthquake?

17. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #174084 by Mark Smith on May 1, 2008 at 3:10 pm

Since RM has felt it appropriate to 'psychoanalyse' atheists on this site and also make claims about his own inner being, I don't feel bad about saying this: to me, he always seemed a bit needy. Some people are just like that, and it drives them more than anything else, including rationality. He will continue to be needy now he has re-re-reconverted.

18. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #165511 by Mark Smith on April 21, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Kardashovel
I really can't see that your god is very different from the flying teapot, and you are claiming to be the only guy who has ever been up to see it

19. Lizards Undergo Rapid Evolution After Introduction To A New Home

Comment #164720 by Mark Smith on April 20, 2008 at 3:31 pm

Clive
Extinction
Lack of change in environment

20. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164717 by Mark Smith on April 20, 2008 at 3:28 pm

What I am still unclear about is his motivation. He appears on various threads finding whatever way he can to bring up the conspiracy. But why? David Icke etc at least have the virtue of thinking there is something going on now (alien lizards taking over) that we all need to know about. But this conspiracy is merely about something that did or didn't happen in the past, and (if he is right) only has academic effect now.

21. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164713 by Mark Smith on April 20, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Steve
It wouldn't be a conspiracy if top-rank historians agreed with him

22. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164689 by Mark Smith on April 20, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Kardashovel

I am here to check my ideas against my peers (even though more than a few of you laugh at the idea that I am your peer)

That is why I added the phrase 'who share similar values etc'. It seems to me that when somebody says something that would show a particular view of yours to be wrong you feel free to set aside the particular values on which their arguments are based. Steve, for example, in the discussion of time travel, thinks that you shouldn't claim something as 'possible' in any meaningful sense if it is not possible according to current science. You feel differently. So be it, but you aren't really checking your ideas against his. (Apologies if I have misrepresented either of you here.)

23. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164641 by Mark Smith on April 20, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Kardashovel

You may safely ignore me, if you feel that force of numbers is what merits reckoning when dealing with theists.

That wasn't why I asked.

Religion is normally a communal activity, and religious ideas usually get some form of checking by peers who share similar values etc. You clearly feel you don't need that. Fair enough I suppose, since you presumably don't try to impose your views on anyone else.

But what it does seem at odds with is your appeals to Jesus, the Christian god and the Bible. These are all (at least as we have them now) products of religious communities. Why do you feel free to appeal to Jesus, god and the Bible, yet stand outside of the collective 'wisdom' (as they see it) of the communities that 'produced' them?

24. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164570 by Mark Smith on April 20, 2008 at 12:19 pm

Kardashovel
Sorry if you have addressed this before, but your version of Christianity seems pretty much one off. Do you consider yourself a member of a church or other such body (or if not a member, at least have any allegiance to)? If so, which one, and is its doctrine similar to your own?

25. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #164125 by Mark Smith on April 19, 2008 at 3:18 pm

Just caught up on the thread.

Remnant, you aren't doing yourself or your fellow creationists any favours with your approach. You are mentioning old arguments whose errors have been pointed out before and you are simply providing opportunity for them to be pointed out again. At the same time, your statements aren't very well reasoned (though you don't seem able to recognise this yourself), and there is a danger people might think you are representative of all creationists! My advice is to keep quiet and pray for the atheists. I doubt it will have any positive effect, but at least you won't do the damage to your cause you are doing now.

26. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #163589 by Mark Smith on April 18, 2008 at 3:16 pm

Paulgnewton
I applaud your desire to take history seriously. Are you by any chance a believer in ID/creationism and a believer in the accuracy of the Bible? If so, do you believe that history should be taken as seriously in these areas?

27. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162758 by Mark Smith on April 17, 2008 at 12:11 pm

This 'laws of logic defined in God' thing comes up a lot in debates with Christians who hold to something they call Presuppositionalism. Their argument seems to be that you have to presuppose this (ie logic is defined in the nature of God) is true (though you can't prove it) in order to even use reason. So the fact that you use reason is evidence that it is true. Hence atheists are self-contradictory when they use reason.

As far as I can tell, presuppositionalists think that the fact that you have to presuppose 'reason is grounded in God' means you don't have to worry that it doesn't make sense in its own terms (which it doesn't, as MPhil has demonstrated). It is another version of the appeal to mystery.

28. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #159645 by Mark Smith on April 12, 2008 at 5:26 pm

Bigcanuck
You are suggesting science needs to leave the door open to any possible answer. Presumably, you mean it should leave the door open to any hypothesis that seeks to explain any particular phenomena, which hypothesis will be tested, etc etc.

But the problem is that ID is not a hypothesis in this sense. It doesn't seek to explain anything. Instead ID proponents do two things. (1) They point to phenomenon X and say it can't be explained by anything currently on offer by science. (2) Therefore, goddidit (or, strictly speaking, 'an intelligent designer whose existence and nature we have no knowledge of did it').

It seems to me you are confusing the need for science always to be open to new hypotheses with something else.

As Dr Benway has been saying in other threads, it is about the papers.

[Edit: wow, I am way too slow. Bonzai, Dr B and Steve Z all posted good answers while I was writing this]

29. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159636 by Mark Smith on April 12, 2008 at 5:03 pm

I make a distinction between ID, and faith in the record of the Bible.

I agree. They are two different issues. ID makes a case that there are things which can only be explained by invoking an intelligent designer, while the Bible (among other things) makes claims about the involvement of various supernatural entities in history.

You are right to make the distinction. But of course that doesn't make your support of either of them any more valid.

ID theorists, I think, would say we don't know what brought it all about yet, but it sure looks designed and the math for mutation and natural selection just isn't adding up.

Indeed. Evolutionary biologists on the other hand would say 'It sure looks designed and in the vast majority of cases we have already shown how the math for mutation and natural selection adds up; while the rest we are working on and producing answers for all the time.'

As a Christian, I would say I believe the Bible. Beyond that I would agree with Kierkegaard - the man of faith is silent.

I once took a similar position. But after I had studied the Bible seriously for some time I concluded it was an all-too-human book that was not deserving of faith. I don't think Kierkegaard, by the way, would commend you for bibliolatry, he was more into an existential leap of faith. Either way, if you prefer to be silent than explain yourself, so be it, but why then come on a message board like this? (Not that you aren't welcome, but it does seem rather inconsistent.)

30. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159598 by Mark Smith on April 12, 2008 at 3:30 pm

please describe the putative non-naturalistic mechanisms that did bring it about

This mechanism thing is something the proponents of Intelligent Design don't seem to grapple with at all. They are happy with leaving things at the level of 'design'. But this just doesn't do the job. I can design a fabulous skyscraper in my head, but somebody still has to make it and how they make it can still be described. So it is entirely proper to ask the ID people how they think god made the things they point to. Perhaps to make this clear we should ask them to rename the theory Intelligent Making.

31. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159576 by Mark Smith on April 12, 2008 at 2:55 pm

dug

I'm just no longer willing to concede my world view to a group of scientists who seem to worship consensus.

Without scientists, you and I would not know anything about the interior workings of a cell. So it seems a little disingenuous to claim there is a 'majestic complexity' to that interior and then say this.

I don't know what mechanisms

If you aren't prepared to offer any alternative mechanisms, why are you denying the ones offered by evolutionary biologists?

Yes, I believe God did it - but that's beside the point

No it isn't. Whether god did it, or someone else, or no intelligent designer at all, there must have been a mechanism by which it happened. If you can't describe the mechanism you haven't offered a workable alternative. A painting has an intelligent designer, but you can still describe the brushstrokes used to make it.

who seem to worship consensus

This sounds like anti-scientific rhetoric at the moment. Could you explain what you mean please?

Do you think things can be majestic?

Yes

32. 'Expelled' ripped off Harvard's 'Inner Life of the Cell' animation

Comment #159563 by Mark Smith on April 12, 2008 at 2:15 pm

dug
d'oh



I'm tempted to leave it there. But go on then: please describe the putative non-naturalistic mechanisms that did bring it about. ('Goddidit' is not a mechanism by the way. But you can include willys and nillys if you want.)

Also, is it any 'majestic complexity' that you think can't be explained by naturalistic mechanisms, or only that within cells?

33. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159535 by Mark Smith on April 12, 2008 at 12:26 pm

ThoughtsonCommonToad
I think I see what you are getting at. Would you prefer I had said something like, 'I do worry that he puts some people off changing their minds and taking more rationally-established positions (which might eventually lead to atheism among other things) with this approach'? :)

34. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159523 by Mark Smith on April 12, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Who cares?

I assume RD cares. That is at least on reason why he wrote The God Delusion.

I care. I don't want people to remain committed to a false position simply because one of the spokesmen for 'the other side' is perceived to be insulting them about their intelligence.

35. Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher

Comment #159517 by Mark Smith on April 12, 2008 at 11:42 am

I do think RD is wrong in his seeming refusal to accept intelligent people can hold literalist-type beliefs. To repeat what I said some time ago on the 'Richard Dawkins on the Alan Colmes Show' thread:

While I agree with a good deal that RD says, I wish he would not imply, or at least seem to imply, that believers must not be very intelligent (unless their belief is of the type held by Einstein etc). I think he needs to find a way to acknowledge that there are a very large number of highly intelligent people who nevertheless hold to many of the standard Christian beliefs. He could talk about compartmentalisation etc in this regard. As it is, people hear him to say something close to 'all Christians are stupid'. They know this isn't the case, and it gives them reason to suspect his other assertions may be false.

I do worry that he puts some people off atheism with this approach.

36. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159213 by Mark Smith on April 11, 2008 at 4:47 pm

ASMarques

Can you please enlighten me

I have no expectation of being able to enlighten you and I am not going to try. Evidence, no matter how convincing to others, just won't do what it says on the tin for conspiracy theorists.

37. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159179 by Mark Smith on April 11, 2008 at 2:34 pm

I understand that people love conspiracies, but why?

And why go for one that is so obviously false and repugnant. There is a big difference between, say, questioning who was responsible for the JFK assassination and denying that there really were vast numbers of horrifically treated and then murdered jewish people.

Actually, when I think about, perhaps it is the sheer ludicrous audacity of the holocaust denial that makes it attractive in some way? (But why?)

38. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #159164 by Mark Smith on April 11, 2008 at 2:18 pm

Can anybody enlighten me as to why people like ASMarques commit themselves to something so silly? I can see that there are various reasons why religious people commit to their silliness (community, what their parents told them, general fear of what will happen to society without religion, etc). But I don't see those applying to holocaust deniers. So why do they hold to it in the face of all the evidence? What is in it for them, as it were?

39. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157886 by Mark Smith on April 9, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Corylus, Dr B
I didn't want to get into either questioning or disagreeing with your judgements. We all have to make at least provisional and private judgements about people all the time. I suppose I felt and feel sympathy for mike if it happens to be the case that the judgements you have made public might be wrong.

I appreciate though that there are times when people feel it is necessary to make their judgements public, and I can understand in view of the perceived sexism that you felt it so here.

Indeed, I hope that I will call people out if I perceive sexism, homophobia and the like. I haven't perceived it in this case, though I can see how the things you point to could be interpreted that way. I can see how they could be interpreted other ways too. In fact I was going to suggest the examples you just gave, Dr B, could be interpreted as 'her' being dawn and him thinking you were a gay married couple like Steve. But this time I checked the postings before submitting this one and see that Mike has already said that.

Things become extremely difficult when we start reading things into obscure things people say.

40. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157842 by Mark Smith on April 9, 2008 at 3:42 pm

Corylus, Dr Benway
I hope you are right. Because if you aren't, these are very serious things you are saying and I suspect they will have caused some pain. It seems quite something to diagnose somebody from such a distance.

[Edit: for what it is worth, I submitted this without seeing mikejswalker's above post.]

41. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157183 by Mark Smith on April 8, 2008 at 4:10 pm

Must go to bed now. Tomorrow's another day.

[Edit: wanted to say something more hopeful than that, but I'm crap with words for that sort of thing]

42. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #157158 by Mark Smith on April 8, 2008 at 3:41 pm

You are free to disagree with who you like. But that freedom extends to other to disagree with you in any manner they choose. This is the nature of the internet. If you can't deal with it, either don't post or ignore responses you don't like.

I'm nervous about weighing in, but the trouble is, once a debate has been entered which involves making judgements as to the motives of the other debater, ignoring them allows those judgements to stand. This potentially lessens in the mind of others any future contribution you may wish to make. Even more so when the judgements have been delivered by people held in high regard.

On another, but related, point, is it just me or have things gone rather weird on this site over the last couple of days? I guess the site is in some senses a community, and weird things do happen in communities, but I have found it all pretty uncomfortable.

43. Fleabytes

Comment #156412 by Mark Smith on April 7, 2008 at 1:46 pm

Steve

After having made an ass of myself by preaching to people on the "Cult leader" thread, I am going to try and take some comfort by indulging my narcissism. I would be interested in opinions on this blog entry... does it make sense?
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/114429.html

I've had a go at a theological critique. Thanks for the opportunity to be a theologian again - ah, happy days!

44. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #156009 by Mark Smith on April 6, 2008 at 1:31 pm

sdbranum
You replied to my suggestion that you post something substantive by lumping me in with a highly generalised and negatively stereotyped 'you' and by making entirely unwarranted assumptions about me. So be it. But the approach you are taking will not lead to constructive debate. I assume that you are aware of this, but perhaps I have misjudged you.

45. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155964 by Mark Smith on April 6, 2008 at 12:38 pm

fides
Would you be happier if RD had been somewhat more nuanced and said something like 'Religious fundamentalism is a key contributing factor in a great many (perhaps the large majority) of suicide bombimngs, and so without this kind of extremism there would be far fewer suicide bombings'? Or are you, in a round-about way, suggesting religious fundamentalism is not a key contributing factor?

46. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #155955 by Mark Smith on April 6, 2008 at 12:20 pm

sdbranum
I think many of the readers and posters here, me included, would appreciate it if you said something of substance rather than demonstrating your ability to swap insults.

47. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155771 by Mark Smith on April 5, 2008 at 5:05 pm

I wouldn't say the historical record supports his non-existence. Loads of people existed in those times without a contemporary record being made of them. I personally think the origin of the first Christian groups and the subsequent literary record (ie New Testament and other writings) is best explained if there was a chap called Jesus proclaiming that a messianic kingdom was about to arrive. This chap, though, was no doubt very different from the Jesus of popular imagination.

(And I recognise plenty others on this site seem to think Jesus never existed.)

if the earth is only 6000 years old as our YE friends claim, how do they explain the size of the universe, when it can be clearly demonstrated that the speed of light is approximately 300000 km/sec, and that gazillions of stars are farther away than 6000 light years?

God started the photons in 'mid-vacuum' of course!

48. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155766 by Mark Smith on April 5, 2008 at 4:47 pm

Thanks very much Cartomancer

I read a debate on the resurrection between Craig and Bart Ehrman in which Craig threw Earman at Ehrman(!) and Ehrman's response effectively was 'I can't believe we are doing maths with history'. Unfortunately, this didn't come across as a very good rebuttal, and I wish he had given the sort of response you have.

Oh, I also agree with you that Craig sounds like someone trying to talk the talk of modern ideas but without properly coming to terms with them.

49. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155759 by Mark Smith on April 5, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Cartomancer
Your discussion of miracles and historical evidence: have you come across William Lane Craig at all? He claims that Hume has been refuted re miracles and refers to John Earman (a professor of philosophy of science apparently) and his book 'Hume's Abject Failure: The Argument Against Miracles'. Craig claims (I am simplifying somewhat, but hopefully not unfairly) that while the probability of a particular event may be extremely low (eg a miracle), if all the alternative explanations (ie naturalistic ones) are even more improbable, then the miracle becomes the probable explanation. This argument underlies the views of many Christians who post on this site about the resurrection.

I know why I regard Craig as wrong, but I'm interested whether historians have discussed Earman's arguments and what the reaction is.

50. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155749 by Mark Smith on April 5, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Kaiserkriss
I'm not Cartomancer, but I did study biblical history in the 80s at university. The ossuary with the name 'Jesus' on had been discovered at the time. The consensus seemed to be that the claims that were being made were highly speculative and could not be given much credence. As far as I am aware, this consensus remains.

More Pages: 1 2 3 4 | Next