traders who are deeply religious
- Thread starter hermit_trader
- Start date
Unfortunately reality is continuously filtered and interpreted subjectively by humans. In fact we can never know the true nature of reality, such as it may be, because we are blocking the view.
What enters one's eye over a given period is not identical to what one "sees" in the brain. If it was we'd be plagued by irritating hallucinogenic effects that would impinge on a good mammoth hunt. And what one "sees" can also depend on notions of what one might want to, or not want to, or expect to see. e.g A harmless shadow could appear as a malevolent ghost to a scared infant. For him the threat is as real as his hand.
One person's "Oh look the stone's rolled back and he's scarpered!" is another's "Some thoughtless rapscallion broke in and stole the body!" And these might be just two reactions of the handful of first-hand witnesses. Add a few more layers of Chinese whispers, copying and editing of text and a pinch of centuries and and the distortion of reality continues to grow.
Perhaps the witnesses of the "miracles" culminating in the "resurrection" genuinely believed they happened and thus were prepared to die for their charismatic guru ... but only because from their subjective frame of reference the evidence was sufficient to convince them?
Try telling that to the IRS when your tax bill is due.
There is a reality to which we all adhere. It is the reality that law and science would say is recognized by a reasonable person.
Whenever a fact appears that is unpleasant, people like yourself tend to try to blur the lines of this "reasonable person's" reality.
Nice try.
Yes, I agree. There are reasonable interpretations of reality that have consistently conformed (allowing for the odd revision) to our empirical observations coupled with logic/induction etc. and ones which thus should appeal to most reasonable members of society, such as
It's not very nice to kill someone
Gravity keeps us down to earth
You can't eat like a bird and defecate like an elephant
Nononsense has a delightful sense of nominal irony
But I don't see what this has to do with the argument in hand. Though I butted in only recently, I thought you were discussing a specific and damned unusual case that does not conform in the slightest with a "reality that law and science would say is recognized by a reasonable person". The "resurrection" was, to put it mildly, worthy of a raised eyebrow and as such flies in the face of this "reason to which we all adhere".
Ok, so if I understand your interpretation of "fact" correctly:
A handful of people believed with incredible conviction that they had seen someone else (a chap they were quite fond of already) cheat the Reaper.
Since nobody had achieved this feat before (and nobody has since) they felt entitled to perk up a bit and some even took the unusual step of killing themselves.
So you're wondering how anyone in their right mind could do this to themselves unless they actually "knew" what they saw was true and thus their belief was promoted to reality.
Though I am surprised and saddened by the alleged reaction of some to the "resurrection" (as I am by, for instance, the result of the indoctrination and conviction of suicide bombers) I do not share your view that "it must have been true or they wouldn't have done it". Humans have an amazing capacity for doing crazy irrational things and your example is just one on a long list.
So now we are back where we started.
If I saw someone come back from more than a few hours' worth of clinical death without any intervention I would certainly offer them a cup of tea and a biscuit and hope they wanted a long chat. I wouldn't find it unpleasant at all, far from it, it could be rather breathtaking, inspiring and interesting to hear their story and compare it with the medical records of the event.
Even so, I couldn't be absolutely sure what I had seen was the objective truth. I simply would not have 100% trust in my observational capacities to say for certain that I'd witnessed the truth, let alone throw a personal 13 in light of it. I'd want to see a few more examples, at the very least.
All the more reason why we should examine it carefully.
I think you would agree that it would need attestation probably better than any other known fact of history, and it turns out that is the case. Article on the resurrection
I canât discuss the rest of this until you gain a little more knowledge. If you like, feel free to read the text of the link above â Iâll be happy to discuss afterward. I donât have the time to educate everyone.
Any chance of an unbiased source with which I could educate myself further?
From the site you cite:
"We are sponsored by Christian Leadership Ministries, a non-profit organization ... the faculty outreach and training arm of Campus Crusade for Christ International ..."
"... a growing community of apologists for the historical Christian faith"
I will read the article though. It is rather more interesting to read views with which one principally disagrees than ones with which one sympathises. Thanks for the link.
From the site you cite:
"We are sponsored by Christian Leadership Ministries, a non-profit organization ... the faculty outreach and training arm of Campus Crusade for Christ International ..."
"... a growing community of apologists for the historical Christian faith"
I will read the article though. It is rather more interesting to read views with which one principally disagrees than ones with which one sympathises. Thanks for the link.
"John looked over to the place where the body of Jesus had lain, and there were the grave clothes, in the form of the body, slightly caved in and empty--like the empty chrysalis of a caterpillar's cocoon. That's enough to make a believer out of anybody. John never did get over it."
"Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that."
Liking the unintentional humour.
"What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago."
A single person who'd seen it happen would help, mind.
A large gang of boozed up heathens who weren't big fans of Jesus scared off the guards, moved the stone a long way to freak people out (and perhaps deflect attention from themselves and spare the guards a nasty fate ... "Hey Bob less make it look like he did it, that'll throw 'em"), stole the body (his clothes fell off as they were a bit clumsy lifting it) and laid it to rest out of sight somewhere else. Word of the resurrection spread fast and before you could say 'conversion' 500 odd people were enjoying a piece of the searing, hopeful high of collective delusion, rather like they do in an Evangelical church before the ritual empyting of wallets.
Unlikely circumstantial evidence? Yes indeed, very similar to that presented in the document you suggested, except for the troublesome bit about a dead person coming back to life.
"Then consider the theory that the body was stolen by the disciples while the guards slept. The depression and cowardice of the disciples provide a hard-hitting argument against their suddenly becoming so brave and daring as to face a detachment of soldiers at the tomb and steal the body. They were in no mood to attempt anything like that."
Liking the unintentional humour.
"What gives a special authority to the list (of witnesses) as historical evidence is the reference to most of the five hundred brethren being still alive. St. Paul says in effect, 'If you do not believe me, you can ask them.' Such a statement in an admittedly genuine letter written within thirty years of the event is almost as strong evidence as one could hope to get for something that happened nearly two thousand years ago."
A single person who'd seen it happen would help, mind.
A large gang of boozed up heathens who weren't big fans of Jesus scared off the guards, moved the stone a long way to freak people out (and perhaps deflect attention from themselves and spare the guards a nasty fate ... "Hey Bob less make it look like he did it, that'll throw 'em"), stole the body (his clothes fell off as they were a bit clumsy lifting it) and laid it to rest out of sight somewhere else. Word of the resurrection spread fast and before you could say 'conversion' 500 odd people were enjoying a piece of the searing, hopeful high of collective delusion, rather like they do in an Evangelical church before the ritual empyting of wallets.
Unlikely circumstantial evidence? Yes indeed, very similar to that presented in the document you suggested, except for the troublesome bit about a dead person coming back to life.