tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post2697870056954891948..comments2023-06-01T14:08:49.977+00:00Comments on Confessions of a Doubting Thomas: Richard Carrier's very human JesusUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-77245920981844706362013-07-31T17:33:06.769+00:002013-07-31T17:33:06.769+00:00"Given these two observations, why does Jesus..."Given these two observations, why does Jesus do nothing to inform his disciples of a few health related things which could prevent disease?"<br /><br />This seems to be a default atheist argument. I find it to be an unconving one, ultimately though. The value in science is in an unnuanced nutshell gaining knowledge by the induction from empirical observations and developing them into theories. The method is important here and the professionals have to know the way the conclusion has been arrived at.<br /><br />That lands us at the problem with such medical uplifts. It puts unintegrated correct knowledge in a society that likely would not place it in the proper framework. For instance, what would prevent people to interpret this new knowledge in terms of demonology, with the useful medical knowledge eventually becoming quackery? If that seems implausible, we should consider how air traffic led to cargo cults in the Pacific, especially in Micronesia.<br /><br />"For example, he could have instructed his disciples in the merits of properly washing your hands before eating. He appears to actually do the exact opposite to this, by telling them that hand washing before meals is not important (Matthew 15:1-20). We know (from science) that washing is important and this simple action can prevent disease and infection, etc. Jesus does not know this."<br /><br />Washing with water that has been sufficiently purified is important. But we do not have a reason to suppose that the water used for ritual washing was sanitary. Is there evidence that Jews who did perform these washings live longer? It is up to Carrier to finish this line of argument, as this isn't just not cogent, it's not persuasive.Ignorancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08840540848601019925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20930767.post-30492581780165609792013-05-16T10:42:17.360+00:002013-05-16T10:42:17.360+00:00That link to reasonsforgod.org is a fine example o...That link to reasonsforgod.org is a fine example of the state of modern apologetics and how Christians will go to great lengths convincing others - but especially convincing themselves - that they are right. It checks all the boxes:<br /><br />• Suggest that the skeptic's objection is no objection at all. In fact, claim that the onus is on the skeptic to prove the objection by setting an unreasonably high burden of proof, usually the punt to mystery - "we can't possibly know what God's greater intentions are etc". Skeptic has to show what is in God's mind. Touché!<br /><br />• Label the skeptic's argument as an appeal to emotion to try and discredit its reasonableness.<br /><br />• Reinforce traditional dogma as much as possible by appealing to cherrypicked Bible texts. Above all, take it back to Calvary. Salesmanship is about ABC "Always Be Closing" and evangelism is no different. Always Be Converting. If necessary use fear: telling the opposition they're going to die is standard procedure here.<br /><br />• Shore up the doctrine of biblical inspiration. Skepticism goes right for the foundations of this edifice, so it needs buttressing. If you can do it while making a completely different point entirely, then bravo!<br /><br />• Claim that only Christians know the truth and are motivated by the true God. Cultism will only thrive by recruiting newbies to the ranks. Make it sound like you and your cronies are the ones who have found a Wonka Golden Ticket.Timnoreply@blogger.com