|
jonahbear
|
|
Posted 08/25/10
|
Reply with quote
#31
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by billclutejbiemans- Quote:
its possible, but is it really likely ? Or better yet, is it demonstrable ?
I don't know. I was mostly just trying to defend the way Ravi footnoted it in his book. I think the way he did it was an honest and accurate account. We don't really know if the Miller book is the primary source or Lewis, as widely attributed. I don't think we have enough to say that attributing it to Lewis is a lie that has been passed around so much that people believe it.
Ravi Zacharias is not someone I attribute with carelessness. I'm willing to bet that RZIM researched this before publishing it.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
billclute
|
|
Posted 08/25/10
|
Reply with quote
#32
|
|
jbiemans-
Quote: How "Beam me up Scotty" is not in the original star tek (spelling ?) It is Star Trek you dilithium crystal depleted Klingon!! Quote: Anything in science is testable, so the validity of discoveries is not related to hearsay at all. If a scientist came out to the local news paper and said they had discovered cold fusion, or a way to prove abiogenesis, I would not believe it, until I could see the evidence that their claim was true. Have you actually witnessed the "inside" of an atom? Have you personally seen a proton or an electron? Have you personally witnessed a black hole or Pluto? If not, do you not believe these things exist?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbiemans
|
|
Posted 08/25/10
|
Reply with quote
#33
|
|
Quote: Have you actually witnessed the "inside" of an atom? Have you personally seen a proton or an electron? Have you personally witnessed a black hole or Pluto? If not, do you not believe these things exist?
No I have not seen these things, but there is evidence that they exist. I would not believe they existed, if I was simply told that they do.
Quote: I guess I stand corrected, it may be classified as evidence, but it is bad evidence. However, by the standards that I judge things, I would not count hearsay as evidence. This would not effect scientific discoveries in the least, as you seam to suggest. Anything in science is testable, so the validity of discoveries is not related to hearsay at all. If a scientist came out to the local news paper and said they had discovered cold fusion, or a way to prove abiogenesis, I would not believe it, until I could see the evidence that their claim was true. Them simply saying it, or someone else saying they saw it, is not sufficient.
Quote: It is Star Trek you dilithium crystal depleted Klingon!!
lol, while I liked the show, I was never that into it. I also never realized that the characters on the enterprise were atheists =)
Quote: Ravi Zacharias is not someone I attribute with carelessness. I'm willing to bet that RZIM researched this before publishing it.
Quote: Ravi refers to the quote by C.S. Lewis in his new book, Has Christianity Failed You. In the footnotes in the book, the quote is said to be "widely attributed to CS Lewis but primary source is unknown".
If we have a quote from a book by Walter Miller, and no quote from Lewis, is it really reasonable to say that the primary source is unknown ? |
|
Loading...
|
|
|
tcampen
|
|
Posted 08/25/10
|
Reply with quote
#34
|
|
Klingons are not atheists. Bejorans are not atheists. But yes, I think most the characters probably were, as was Gene Roddenberry, I believe.
......now back to the regularly scheduled program....
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbiemans
|
|
Posted 08/25/10
|
Reply with quote
#35
|
|
|
I should have been more explicit: The members of the federation that were human.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
tcampen
|
|
Posted 08/25/10
|
Reply with quote
#36
|
|
Quote: Originally Posted by jbiemans
I should have been more explicit: The members of the federation that were human.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
billclute
|
|
Posted 08/26/10
|
Reply with quote
#37
|
|
jbiemans-
Quote: No I have not seen these things, but there is evidence that they exist. I would not believe they existed, if I was simply told that they do. What evidence have you seen for blackholes or Pluto that is not second hand (i.e. hearsay) testimony? I've actually seen Pluto in my telescope. Does that count as first hand evidence for me or is it second hand since I had to rely on charts and computer programs to tell me it was Pluto and not just some dim, obscure dot on my lens?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
billclute
|
|
Posted 08/26/10
|
Reply with quote
#38
|
|
jbiemans-
Quote: If we have a quote from a book by Walter Miller, and no quote from Lewis, is it really reasonable to say that the primary source is unknown ? Yes. Do we have evidence that the quote originated with Miller? I haven't seen any. If Miller is the originator why has the statement been so widely attributed to Lewis? Is there a plausible motive for such a sinister action? Ravi's footnote seems to be an honest, accurate representation of the statement without misleading anyone.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbiemans
|
|
Posted 08/26/10
|
Reply with quote
#39
|
|
Quote: Yes. Do we have evidence that the quote originated with Miller? I haven't seen any. If Miller is the originator why has the statement been so widely attributed to Lewis? Is there a plausible motive for such a sinister action? Ravi's footnote seems to be an honest, accurate representation of the statement without misleading anyone.
So the oldest written recording of something is not evidence ? Should we hold such speculation to anything that is written ? I was not calling it sinister, but simply misguided. Someone says that the quote came from here, and people pass it along, never looking into the source. It can easily happen, look at the examples we have shown. Except that the examples are a little off because they show quotes that never existed being attributed to something that existed.
Quote: Just as an exercise, go to your computer's search engine and type in four words: lie, truth, boots, and world. You will get thousands of references to variations of the following quote: "A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on." Most will cite Mark Twain as the author of this aphorism. Al Gore has given Twain credit for it. So has Mississippi governor Haley Barbour.
But Twain didn't say it. Charles Haddon Spurgeon did, in 1855, and he attributed the wisdom to "an old proverb." Spurgeon was a mid-19th-century British pastor, as famous in his time as Rick Warren and Billy Graham are today in the United States. But that's the thing about fame: It can be fleeting.
Quote: What evidence have you seen for blackholes or Pluto that is not second hand (i.e. hearsay) testimony? I've actually seen Pluto in my telescope. Does that count as first hand evidence for me or is it second hand since I had to rely on charts and computer programs to tell me it was Pluto and not just some dim, obscure dot on my lens?
It would take too long to go through it all this second, but there are observations that are testable and repeatable. I do not simply have to rely on the testimony of a scientist to tell me, I can, should I choose to, recreate their observations, and experiments. I can check their math, etc. etc.
Sometimes even seeing, or hearing something myself is not even evidence of that thing. People can hallucinate, and our eyes can play tricks on us. Especially when it comes to illusions.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
billclute
|
|
Posted 08/27/10
|
Reply with quote
#40
|
|
jbiemans-
Quote:
So the oldest written recording of something is not evidence ?
It is evidence. I never said it wasn't but it also is not conclusive.
Quote:
Someone says that the quote came from here, and people pass it along, never looking into the source. It can easily happen, look at the examples we have shown.
I'm not saying that it couldn't happen. It may have happened here but we have two pieces of evidence. The Miller book and the widely attributed belief that Lewis said it. It is quite possible that Lewis said it and Miller wrote it. We just don't know, therefore, Ravi's footnote is a good, honest explanation of the quote source.
Quote: It would take too long to go through it all this second, but there are observations that are testable and repeatable. I do not simply have to rely on the testimony of a scientist to tell me, I can, should I choose to, recreate their observations, and experiments. I can check their math, etc. etc. Do you have access to a telescope capable of tracking the effects of a blackhole? Do you understand the math related to a black hole? Do you have a telescope capable of seeing Pluto and can you do the math to determine it's specific location at a specific time? If the answer is yes then great - you are definitely in a minority. Most cannot do all of those things so we are left to the written testimony of experts, which is second hand knowledge to us (i.e. hearsay). Giving me links to evidence of black holes and pluto just passes on more hearsay evidence. I didn't witness what they are talking about myself and unless your real name is one of those in the articles you did not either. So, you are accepting hearsay evidence - and there's nothing wrong with that. We all do it. We couldn't get through life if we didn't. Ultra skepticism cannot be applied consistently and still get through life.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
Lightfoot
|
|
Posted 08/27/10
|
Reply with quote
#41
|
|
|
Bill is correct. We rely on the testimony on experts for a lot of different things that we really don't first had evidence for.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbiemans
|
|
Posted 08/27/10
|
Reply with quote
#42
|
|
|
I never said that we had to see things for ourselves, I said that simply hearing someone say it is not enough. Experts rely on evidence to back up their claims, they are not simply making assertions.
About all your examples, the point is that I could do those things, if I so choose to.
If you told me that you heard someone say something, and had nothing to back it up with, I would have no good reason to not believe you, and I could spread that around quite easily. The problem is, when we go back to check the facts, there is no evidence to check. All we had was your testimony, and you may have forgotten by then.
We can trust that a verbal account is accurate, but it does not constitute good evidence.
Quote: I'm not saying that it couldn't happen. It may have happened here but we have two pieces of evidence. The Miller book and the widely attributed belief that Lewis said it. It is quite possible that Lewis said it and Miller wrote it. We just don't know, therefore, Ravi's footnote is a good, honest explanation of the quote source.
I think that the written account is much stronger then an argument from population.
On a side note, it is also quite possible that Jesus never did the things that were written about him, but I doubt that you would bring the same level of skepticism to that.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
billclute
|
|
Posted 08/27/10
|
Reply with quote
#43
|
|
jbiemans-
Quote:
On a side note, it is also quite possible that Jesus never did the things that were written about him, but I doubt that you would bring the same level of skepticism to that.
Actually, I believe I am keeping an even, unbiased approach to skepticism. I believe you are the one giving different levels of skepticism. You say you'll trust experts if they back up their claims but you've also said that you don't trust any history. What if the historian backs up his claim? What if these experts back up their claims but you don't have the knowledge or access to verify their claims?
Why do you think a written account is much stronger than the belief of a large population?
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
jbiemans
|
|
Posted 08/30/10
|
Reply with quote
#44
|
|
|
I will trust experts if they back up their claims with evidence, and I would do the same with historians, if they used the same kind of evidence. If I do not have knowledge, or access to back up someones claim, and it sounds outrageous or, illogical to me, then I will not trust that it is true.
Quote: Why do you think a written account is much stronger than the belief of a large population?
Because a written account is verifiable, and a belief held by a large population can easily be wrong. All it takes is for a rumor to start, and then to be spread like truth. Just look at how many people in America think that Obama is a Muslim.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
|
billclute
|
|
Posted 08/30/10
|
Reply with quote
#45
|
|
jbiemans-
Quote:
Because a written account is verifiable
We have written accounts of a risen Jesus. I know you don't accept that as verifiable. We have written accounts of all kinds of things in history that are not veifiable. In fact, the best you can do with written accounts is find material evidence that might support the account or other written accounts that might support it but it is not something that you can test yourself, like we can do with a science experiment.
Quote:
Just look at how many people in America think that Obama is a Muslim.
Obama does not help himself against these accusation and many others (e.g. his place of birth). His claims to be Christian sound hollow. There doesn't seem to be any committment. At best he seems to be Christian in name only - which would put him in the same boat with a lot of people. The church he went to for 20 years is debatable at best to be considered a Christian church. The focus of the church certainly isn't on the sacrifice of Jesus. Looking through their website I saw just one passing mention of the crucifixion. The church is more focused on race than salvation.
Personally, I don't think He is either Christian or Muslim or any other organized religion. He is politician.
I mentioned his place of birth earlier. I really believe he was born in Hawaii but you've got to wonder why all the secrecy? Why not just show the actual birth certificate? The form they have shown is not the official document and is a form that didn't exist back when he was born. This just adds to the rumors and questions. He could put a stop to it if he wanted but I think he leaves it like this to use as a political tool.
|
|
Loading...
|
|
