Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Posted by Al at PleaseConvinceMe.blogspot.com
Presuppositions can have a profound impact on the beliefs that we hold. I was reminded of that recently while listening to a podcast from the UK called "Unbelievable." Jim mentioned it not long ago on one of his podcasts and I quickly became a big fan. The usual format is a debate between an atheist or agnostic and a believer. The podcast I was listening to was a discussion between Michael Licona and Bart Ehrman.
Ehrman is a well-credentialed former believer. He's the kind of Biblical expert that causes many Christians to experience pangs of doubt. After all, he's studied the Bible in far more detail than the vast majority of us, and in the original languages. He was once a believer himself, so maybe his journey away from faith is one to greater knowledge. Or maybe it's something else - the product of the presuppositions that shape his worldview.
At one point in the debate, Ehrman took the position that accounts of the Resurrection are not history, they're expressions of faith. His reason: historians never ascribe events to divine sources. "That's not doing history," he says. Licona, an expert in his own right, responded in a manner that readers of PleaseConvinceMe would find quite familiar. It's called abductive reasoning, the process of examining all of the evidence to arrive at the best explanation. Licona outlined the basic historical facts - the crucifixion of Jesus, the later empty tomb, the change in the behavior of the Apostles, the claim that they had seen Jesus in bodily form - to conclude that the Resurrection is the best explanation of those facts. But Ehrman would not budge - "that's faith," he insisted.
Licona asked how Ehrman would describe, for instance, the account of a "headless guy resurrected." Ehrmann chuckled: "It would be strange," he said.
Strange indeed. But apparently not miraculous. For in Ehrman's frame of reference, miracles are not possible.
Claiming that nothing miraculous can ever occur is a sure way to become an atheist. Christianity is based in miracles, both the Resurrection and the miracles performed by Jesus to establish his divinity. If one begins by rejecting the very possibility of them, then rejecting Christianity is a pretty predictable result.
There is a better way to assess evidence, however. It's the same way that is used in courtrooms throughout the world. One can follow where the evidence leads, and accept the conclusion that is the best explanation from and for that evidence. Even if the conclusion appears unlikely at first glance; even if the conclusion causes us to re-examine the worldview with which we have become comfortable.
Perhaps Ehrman is correct that the Resurrection did not occur. But insisting that no amount of evidence can ever establish it - because if it had occurred, it would have been a miracle - is not a view that is likely to persuade a reasonable person. In fact, it says much more about the person holding the presuppositions than it does about the issue at hand.
Resource: pleaseconvinceme.blogspot.com
Related Posts:
Forged?
Posted by Al at PleaseConvinceMe.blogspot.com
Ehrman is a well-credentialed former believer. He's the kind of Biblical expert that causes many Christians to experience pangs of doubt. After all, he's studied the Bible in far more detail than the vast majority of us, and in the original languages. He was once a believer himself, so maybe his journey away from faith is one to greater knowledge. Or maybe it's something else - the product of the presuppositions that shape his worldview.
At one point in the debate, Ehrman took the position that accounts of the Resurrection are not history, they're expressions of faith. His reason: historians never ascribe events to divine sources. "That's not doing history," he says. Licona, an expert in his own right, responded in a manner that readers of PleaseConvinceMe would find quite familiar. It's called abductive reasoning, the process of examining all of the evidence to arrive at the best explanation. Licona outlined the basic historical facts - the crucifixion of Jesus, the later empty tomb, the change in the behavior of the Apostles, the claim that they had seen Jesus in bodily form - to conclude that the Resurrection is the best explanation of those facts. But Ehrman would not budge - "that's faith," he insisted.
Licona asked how Ehrman would describe, for instance, the account of a "headless guy resurrected." Ehrmann chuckled: "It would be strange," he said.
Strange indeed. But apparently not miraculous. For in Ehrman's frame of reference, miracles are not possible.
Claiming that nothing miraculous can ever occur is a sure way to become an atheist. Christianity is based in miracles, both the Resurrection and the miracles performed by Jesus to establish his divinity. If one begins by rejecting the very possibility of them, then rejecting Christianity is a pretty predictable result.
There is a better way to assess evidence, however. It's the same way that is used in courtrooms throughout the world. One can follow where the evidence leads, and accept the conclusion that is the best explanation from and for that evidence. Even if the conclusion appears unlikely at first glance; even if the conclusion causes us to re-examine the worldview with which we have become comfortable.
Perhaps Ehrman is correct that the Resurrection did not occur. But insisting that no amount of evidence can ever establish it - because if it had occurred, it would have been a miracle - is not a view that is likely to persuade a reasonable person. In fact, it says much more about the person holding the presuppositions than it does about the issue at hand.
Resource: pleaseconvinceme.blogspot.com
Related Posts:
Forged?
No comments:
Post a Comment