Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora) · In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo
In the previous post, namely: |
"Your argument currently has this structure:"
Let's see how he analyses me.
"1. You assume that Catholicism is divinely protected.
"2. You treat Catholic traditions and miracle reports as confirmation of that protection.
"3. You then use the alleged divine protection of Catholicism to certify those same traditions and miracle reports."
No.
Tradition by itself even non-Catholic, even not divinely protected, is a prima facie argument. It could be overridden, but it is not to be dismissed just because it is tradition.
Dito for miracle reports.
"You may continue calling Pentecost 'objective history,' but repeating that label does not produce independent corroboration."
A) Such things (independent corroboration) are a bonus, not a necessity. Not outside periods that are both welldocumented enough and wellpreserved enough for the absence to be conspicuous.
B) There actually is independent corroboration of the Church existing, which leaves the question since when and how, and leaves the Church's tradition about it a prima facie evidence about its origins. As with any other community.
Before you try pretending I need remedial logic from the likes of you, try learning sufficient logic to not misanalyse how my argument stands.
"You accuse me of “atheistic prejudice” because I do not accept miracle stories at face value."
We should take any story at face value unless a factor overrides it. In many cases that factor can be, it's a joke. In your case, it's atheistic prejudice. I e, you hold a world view excluding miracles and that fudges your demands on how much confirmation it needs.
For a miracle, the procedure is not "how many other sources that don't believe the miraculous report the miracle" (at many times that would be zero, since none at the time systematically disbelieved miracles, plus, if it reported the miracle, it would presumably believe the miracle and therefore not count on your view), the procedure is: apart from the purported miracle, what else can it be, and can that be excluded, reasonably?
And the answer to very many miracles is, yes, it can be reasonably excluded. That's when a miracle is accepted.
"You have only demonstrated how thoroughly your prior commitment determines what you count as verification."
I have a prior commitment to believing any story unless there is a specific reason to disbelieve it. You have one to disbelieving specifically stories of miracles, unless there is on the spot presented an overwhelming amount of evidence, from other sources, even if that was not where you were pulling the debate. And even if all the other sources would be discounted as routinely as soon as they indisputably were reporting a miracle.
"You then demand that I reconstruct, step by step, exactly how the Pentecost story developed. That reverses the burden of proof. I do not need to produce the complete historical genealogy of a story before declining to believe its supernatural elements."
I was not asking "complete" and at that accurate. I was asking a reasonable alternative to the miracle.
For instance, a non-miraculus example, the German legend of the Rabenschlacht features Theoderic beating Ermaneric at Ravenna.
A reasonably alternative to this, and preferred for chronological reasons, is, first Ermaneric beat someone other than Theoderic, then Theoderic beat someone other than Ermaneric, both times at Ravenna, then the two battles became confused, only each winner was remembered and because Theoderic came to power after it, he was considered as the winner between the two. I do not know if this was the exact procedure or the sole factor, and given it is in and of itself reasonable, and Ermaneric meeting Theoderic would require a time machine, according to other sources, I'm satisfied that the story is so explainable.
For other instance, the miracle discussed, if the Apostles had been speaking so no one could understand anything, that would have reasonably excluded divine origin.
If they could speak so different people heard their own languages (verified as these converted hearing that preaching, and that in thousands) that would reasonably indicate at least some kind of supernatural origin.
If the story were made up later, you need to answer when.
Say "AD 50" and you need to account for how the community still holding people knowing the real story came to accept this instead. Say "AD 150" and you need to account how the community came to forget whatever story they had previously accepted.
"your dismissal of Islam exposes the special pleading. You readily devise natural explanations for Muslim miracle reports—social pressure, propaganda, retrospective invention and forced testimony—but resist applying those same categories to Christian reports."
The one Islamic miracle report I would do this for (and actually did this for in the discussion nine years ago) is the one Islam makes from its beginning: the split Moon.
IF the Moon split, it would have been seen over the world. The two testimonies we have are one from the original community and one from India. And the former one is dubious given how late the testimony is. And given the Indian king was submitting to conquerors.
A Muslim claiming supernatural healing, I would usually accept the supernatural healing and explain it as God granting him some reward for the basic goodwill of praying, even if he was wrong about whom to pray to. It didn't happen by Mohammed while he was active, not even claimed to, unlike supernatural healings in the career of Moses (taking away the leprosy given as punishment) and of Jesus (taking away many leprosies and other ailments, including death for some added time).
Your standard is: “Natural explanations are acceptable for rival religions but presumptively inadequate for mine.”
No. Natural explanations are acceptable when available. For many of the miracles in mine they aren't. If you want a natural explanation for Lourdes healings of Tuberculous peritonitis back before they were routinely cured by antibiotics, check out how much blue cheese and goat cheese was served in Lourdes, since these cheeses have molds that are of the penicillus genus. Like the one that's used to produce penicilline. It would still have been providential that so many came to Lourdes and ate goat cheese and blue cheese because of an apparition which presumably didn't come from someone who knew penicilline in advance and planned it ... unless that someone were God.
"Secular institutions, rival religions and political movements have also produced education, medicine, charity and social reform."
Like the one in National Socialist Germany which from 1933 was pushing loafers and vagabonds into camps like the one in Charlottenburg or the one in Oranienburg.
Islam as one rival religion has produced persecution of alcohol (and skyrocketting diabetis). Anglicanism as one rival religion has produced compulsory work houses after taking away monasteries that were voluntary ones. Judaism has produced pornography. Calvinism has produced Totalitarianism since Geneva and Cromwell. As have Anglicanism and Lutheranism since Gustaf Wasa and Henry VIII.
"Conversely, Catholic history contains violence, persecution, coercion"
Comparable to any of above named rivals.
"and credulous superstition."
Like not an objective fact prior to deciding the question we debate, but rather totally dependent on how it is answered.
Your argument is like complaining about non-Socialism allowing private property before the debate between private property and Marxism is closed.
