Skeptics seem to be able to get away with refuting theories, and never really having to prove anything.
17 comments
Can you prove that Jesus did not ressurect? I don't think it's a fair argument when one side has to present hardcore, scientific proof while the other just takes shots at the opposition's theory.
You want to talk about fairness? It's precisely because you cannot prove that he did not resurrect, but it's entirely possible to prove that he did, should that have been the case, that it's only fair to assume the former stance until proof of the latter has been presented.
Even if one couldn't refute the resurrection of Jesus, one could assess the probability of the claim.
Lets say you come home, your apartment door is open and your cat is missing. Two explanations are that 1) your roomate left the door open, and 2) the Alpha Centaurian mob has kidnapped your cat to uncover information about the whereabouts of the stolen Jewel of Neptune, or whatever. You might not be easily able to prove the second explanation wrong, but it seems improbable because it requires a lot of ad hoc assumption (like, you have to assume that organized crime occurs in Alpha Centauri, which means that intelligent life occurs there and also that your cat mysteriously plays some role in intergalactic jewel trade). For the first explanation, you only have to assume that your roomate is negligent-- an assumption that gibes with your experience of that lazy sack of shit.
Lets apply this logic to the resurrection of Jesus. I offer two alternative explanations: 1) Jesus really did rise from the dead, and 2) the resurrection was a lie made up by the followers of Jesus. The first explanation requires a number of improbable assumptions...the sum of my experience is that people don't spontaneously rise from the dead after three days--I have known lots of people who died, and uniformly once deceased they have stayed that way. Just this element seems improbable enough. Then Jesus somehow rolled away an enormous rock to escape the tomb despite the three days of "death" following a brutal execution...where did he get the strength? We have to assume essentially that miracles happened for which we cannot offer mechanistic explanations (or are not allowed to without being branded a heretic). On the other hand, the second explanation only required that a small group of people who were already invested in the myth of Jesus as the saviour (having abandoned gainful employment long before)decided to fabricate the resurrection and stick to their story. No miracle required here. In my experience, small groups of people (governing board of Enron for example) often co-prevaricate. The second explanation is more probable than the first in the absense of any refuting evidence.
Just because I can't prove the resurrection false, Charley, doesn't mean that I have any rational reason to believe that its true.
"I don't think it's a fair argument when one side has to present hardcore, scientific proof while the other just takes shots at the opposition's theory."
- That is what scientists do all the time. If your lot wants the prestige and respect of science, you are going to have to run the same gauntlet as a scientist would. If you refuse, we will assume that you are not really interested in being taken seriously or you are not up to the task.
You cant prove that something did not happen. You can only report that no-one appeared to notice it , if it did. That Jesus of Nazareth evr lived is in doubt.
shiny mirror or what on that last bit.
Well, erm, can you prove that he did resurrect?
No?
Well, we''re done here. Bugger off then.
In the very nature of skepticism lies "never really having to prove anything", they mostly ask others to prove their statements, ideas, hypotheses.
If you don't like the peer-review process, then stay out of science, please.
“Skeptics seem to be able to get away with refuting theories, and never really having to prove anything.”
You seem to think it should be a zero-sum debate. That we cannot reject your claim without offering one of our own for YOU to criticize.
This is the kind of thinking that leads people to claim that finding flaws in evolutionary theory proves Creationism.
If you want your claim to stand up to scrutiny, it has to be on its own. It’s not validated if all other candidate theories are disproven.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
