RD Rauser -

Well, sure. I suppose logic would play a bit role in that as well. Then there is the credibility of the person making the claim, the likelihood that s/he knows what s/he is talking about, etc. I know that I wouldn't trust a compulsive liar with something as simple as giving me directions.

AnAtheist.Net,

I agree that our plausibility structures delimit what is prima facie rational for us to accept. But surely personal experience is not the sole criterion that determines our plausibility structure as your comment seems to suggest.

RD Rauser - To return to the source of this discussion, I think that my main point was that the principle of credulity for any one individual will depend on the inherent plausibility of the claim as measured against one's own background knowledge. It is far more reasonable for me to accept the testimony of the good samaritan directing me to a destination a few miles away than the testimony that 500 saints climbed out of their graves and walked around Jerusalem 2,000 years ago. If, however, in your travels you have witnessed zombies doing this quite frequently, then you would probably be far more willing to accept such testimony.

AnAtheist.Net,

Not only evolution, but doggone it a significant minority believe the earth is not much older than the bristlecone pine tree. Alas, I find that very depressing. But then if we were to yield special credibility to the experts in a field we would have a whole new number of difficulties.

To go back to the knowledge of ancient history, I think that New Testament studies provide substantial objective support for what the church has always claimed. One expert (NT Wright) agrees with me, but another (Marcus Borg) does not. And to top it off, they're friends!

RD Rauser -

Indeed, it does have its problems, as just about any attempt at an epistemic classification would. As you indicated, rural Indians will not necessarily share the same "general knowledge" or background knowledge as educated Americans. One might be tempted to call them separate "knowledge communities."

I added the phrase "factually demonstrable" to the end of #3 in anticipation of the above problem because I think that is more important than a sheer numbers game. I am sure that that has its own problems as well, but if we are going to be in the business of trying to establish knowledge claims then we need to consider what reasonable standards of evidence are.

To answer your question: Knowledge of type 3 should be relatively straightforward to demonstrate such that most reasonable people would agree with its truth. Such knowledge may not even require demonstration because it is so common to experience (the sun rises in the East and sets in the West, etc.). Knowledge of type 2 is not so straightforward to demonstrate and leaves room for most reasonable people to disagree on the proper conclusion.

That's a start, at least. I recognize that this venture is problematic. Consider the following: In the United States most people disagree that evolution is an established fact. Among the general population, this is a contested claim. But how reasonable is this? Among scientific experts there is nearly a complete consensus, and, therefore, it is considered general knowledge.

AnAtheist.Net,

Thanks for a carefully articulated epistemic taxonomy. Nonetheless, it has its problems. For instance, how do we decide when a particular belief belongs in (2) or (3)? Do we conduct surveys? If so, then who gets the survey? Educated North Americans and Europeans? What about tribal Indonesians and day laborers in India? Further, is somebody who rejects an item of general knowledge de facto irrational?

I am not asking for these qualifications to be snotty but because I think we need further clarity if the second and third categories are to be helpful.

RD Rauser -

I think we are in agreement based on your last comments. Perhaps I can propose three different categorizations:

(1) Personal knowledge - Knowledge claimed to be known by an individual but not demonstrable to others. Ex: A Christian who claims to have seen Jesus in a vision.

(2) Contested knowledge - Knowledge for which there is reasonable disagreement over the evidence. Ex: Identifying who wrote the gospels and when.

(3) General knowledge - Knowledge that is nearly universally accepted as true and factually demonstrable. Ex: The Earth is round.

So, when you write that "There may be evidence yielding general factual knowledge that Jesus rose from the dead, even if you and some other people don't believe it to be adequate" I would subsequently agree with your hypothetical but at best identify it as contested knowledge. There are so many historically more plausible scenarios than "Jesus physically rose from the dead" that the preponderance of evidence cannot come close to superseding them. But that's a post for another time, I am sure.

It seems that you have shifted ground (or at least clarified your position in such a way that it looks like you shifted ground). Now you have introduced a new concept, "personal knowledge". It seems then that you concede that the man in the dock could know of his innocence even if he could not demonstrate that to others.

But then you talk about "general factual knowledge" (as if personal knowledge isn't concerned with facts?) which "must be demonstrable to anybody who wants to know about it."

Surely you don't mean demonstrable in terms of logical proof? So a lesser proof -- e.g. beyond a reasonable doubt -- should do. Now in addition I surmise that by demonstrable you don't mean it would convince everybody? Because no argument does that. There are always dissenters.

With that all in view, we are left with this. (1) Christians could have personal knowledge that Jesus rose from the dead. (2) There may be evidence yielding general factual knowledge that Jesus rose from the dead, even if you and some other people don't believe it to be adequate.

RD Rauser -

"Are you saying that for a proposition to count as knowledge the person knowing it has to be able to demonstrate its truth to others?"

Knowledge for whom? Can I claim to have that knowledge if the person knowing it cannot demonstrate its truth to me? I hardly think so. For a statement such as "a person has been resurrected from the dead" to be considered general factual knowledge then it must be demonstrable to anybody who wants to know about it. Otherwise it simply remains personal knowledge, which is not verifiable to anyone other than the person who claims to possess it. Such knowledge is useless for convincing someone else of it.

AnAtheist.Net,

I am perplexed. Are you saying that for a proposition to count as knowledge the person knowing it has to be able to demonstrate its truth to others? That's gonna be a problem and here's why:

I am in a courtroom charged with murder. I know that I am innocent but the circumstantial evidence suggests my guilt. On your view I couldn't know that I am innocent because I could not demonstrate that to the jury.

"That is, how do you know that no one has any such knowledge?"

If somebody does then they are doing a good job at keeping it a secret to most of the world. In this age of global media any event as stupendous as a miraculous ressurrection would draw just a little bit of attention don't you think?

"What exactly is 'conventional wisdom'? Oh perhaps where telekinesis is concerned I might be inclined to agree, but as a general principle barring any supernatural realm?"

We have (or I am not aware of) no direct evidence that demonstrates beyond a reasonable doubt any supernatural phenomena. If we did, such knowledge would have become part of our "conventional wisdom" that is simply accepted as being true. Initially such knowledge would be momentous. Our whole worlds would suddenly change. But I am still waiting..

My first question should actually be "Whose knowledge?" That is, how do you know that no one has any such knowledge?

AnAtheist.Net,

You write:
"We have lots of experience with humans picking up, moving, and throwing rocks. We have no such knowledge of any mysterious non-human 'sources' that brings corpses back to life. Thus, it is still a much more unlikely claim than a rock being moved by a person."

Whose experience?

"the evidence would have to be overwhelming to overturn conventional wisdom on that point."

What exactly is "conventional wisdom"? Oh perhaps where telekinesis is concerned I might be inclined to agree, but as a general principle barring any supernatural realm?

RD Rauser -

"It is extremely unlikely that a rock, left in a state of rest on the forest floor, will begin to propel itself. But that rock may be moved by another force (e.g. a human hand). It is extremely unlikely that a human corpse will revivify itself. But could that corpse be brought back to life by another source?"

We have lots of experience with humans picking up, moving, and throwing rocks. We have no such knowledge of any mysterious non-human 'sources' that brings corpses back to life. Thus, it is still a much more unlikely claim than a rock being moved by a person.

On my college campus there is a small courtyard that contains a number of decent sized boulders. I will often find them arranged to form large Greek letters that coincidently represent various fraternities. The letters that appear there constantly change, but I have never seen anyone actually move the rocks. A claim that frat boys are physically shuffling them around while I am not looking is very likely and I would be willing to accept that claim without going to the trouble of verifying it (principle of credulity). However, if someone claimed instead that same frat boys are telekinetically moving the stones without ever physically being present in the courtyard then I now have ample reason to be skeptical because I know of no reliable evidence that anybody can telekinetically move objects. Is it possible? Sure. But the evidence would have to be overwhelming to overturn conventional wisdom on that point.

"Second, we cannot decide a priori that a supernatural event is impossible, unless we have overwhelming evidence that there is no supernatural realm. What is that evidence? --RD Rauser"

I want to know what kind of evidence you're looking for, so I'll repeat question 2:

--- What evidence do you have for the non-existence of Zeus? ---

After you've got that evidence nice and aired out -- I'll have an idea of what you're looking for.

>You are identifying the "scandal of particularity". I agree that on the face of it, this all looks implausible.

Ah now we’re getting somewhere, we have now established a common ground, this is excellent progress. Yes, it all looks quite implausible and it would only seem so if either

a) it’s not true

b) it was designed to look implausible.

a) fits a certain razor theory quite nicely

b) suggests a trickster god

>You or I would not have done things that way.

You, I and anyone with a lick of sense.

>Let's grant for the sake of argument that there is an infinite God. Is it possible that he might engage in actions which would appear to us as irrational or inexplicable because of our finite perspective?

Nope.

Let’s go back to your description of your god, you said he is “omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent” therefore our finite perspective would be no obstacle in any form of communication. He would be able to make us understand exactly what it was he wanted us to understand.

So since he cannot fail in anything the fact that I don’t believe he is real means one of two things; he failed or he doesn’t exist and since your god by your definition cannot fail that means he must not exist. If he did and if he truly wanted people to know that he did doubt would be impossible.

Now you can say he is real and that his miscommunications are part of some strange and mysterious plan but that means he is not, as you also described him, "omnibenevolent". An omnibenevolent being would not lie or at least be so ambiguous knowing that it would lead to the endless bloodshed done as a direct result of his refusal to confirm his existence.

Nor would he murder babies in their cribs.

>Certainly this seems at least possible. Unless we can construct a valid argument with compelling premises to exclude this possibility we must be open to it. But I see no such compelling argument.

Valid argument with compelling premise given but I suspect you will not see it.

See, that’s the problem with your god being “omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent” The Bible and this reality that is his alleged creation is nothing of the sort so why would such a being create such a place that is not a reflection of that being?

That’s where Zeus and the old gods have a leg up on yours, they were just as chaotic, crazy, beautiful and ugly as the world they are said to have made. I can believe our reality was fashioned by someone like Zeus or Odin because this is the exact sort of thing that kind would make.

>Second, before we even consider the scandal of particularity we need to consider the simple question of whether there is evidence for the claim that a man came back from the dead. The theological interpretation of that event, and all the attendant difficulties, can come later.

Okay.

There isn’t.

What’s the point of Jesus being resurrected if all he did was fly off to Heaven? Why didn’t he fly off to Pontius Pilate and the other politicians who doubted his divinity hold up his healed wounds (would Jesus scar?) and go “Any questions? Great, let’s get your heralds and messengers together, we’ve got work to do, first thing, get rid of that statue of Jupiter.”

Wouldn’t that have ended every other religion on the planet? Would that not have not only been the sensible thing to do but the obvious one? Why didn’t Jesus stick around and guide his church rather than leaving vague instruction that has just created more of the same religious conflict? A Pope is a weak substitute for a real god don’t you think? A system that lead to and continues to lead to endless schisms and is in the constant thrall of Earthly politics.

Once again you’re in a logic trap of your own making, either your god isn’t “omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent” or he is but isn’t “omnibenevolent”.

Or he just isn’t there.

Again, when sliced with that sharp razor what makes the most sense?

Homoousia316 dismisses my analogy as "terrible". Why am I not surprised? The deal breaker seems to be recourse to the supernatural. Two points by way of response.

First, we need to consider the evidence for a resurrection first. Whether that should then be deemed supernatural should come later.

Second, we cannot decide a priori that a supernatural event is impossible, unless we have overwhelming evidence that there is no supernatural realm. What is that evidence?

salvage,

You are identifying the "scandal of particularity". I agree that on the face of it, this all looks implausible. You or I would not have done things that way. But even so, let me make two points in response.

First, we are finite human minds. Let's grant for the sake of argument that there is an infinite God. Is it possible that he might engage in actions which would appear to us as irrational or inexplicable because of our finite perspective? Certainly this seems at least possible. Unless we can construct a valid argument with compelling premises to exclude this possibility we must be open to it. But I see no such compelling argument.

Second, before we even consider the scandal of particularity we need to consider the simple question of whether there is evidence for the claim that a man came back from the dead. The theological interpretation of that event, and all the attendant difficulties, can come later.

AnAtheist.Net,

You write: "A bodily ressurrection is extremely improbably considering what we know about life and death and therefore warrants more skepticism than even the stranger with the secret tunnel in his house."

It is extremely unlikely that a rock, left in a state of rest on the forest floor, will begin to propel itself. But that rock may be moved by another force (e.g. a human hand). It is extremely unlikely that a human corpse will revivify itself. But could that corpse be brought back to life by another source? We'll have to evaluate the evidence for such a claim.

You write: "When it comes to the testimony of the gospels, all things are not equal, because we are now talking about something that is so unlikely that it has not, in our own experiences, ever happened."

I will take "our" here broadly rather than you, I, and our little group. Even so, there are innumerable things that no human person living within recent memory has experienced but which did occur in the past. To decide whether a resurrection is one of those events we will again have to look at the evidence.

Terrible analogy about the CERN director with the magic portal. There is nothing supernatural about the notion of teleportation, but there IS something supernatural (necessarily) about the claim that 'God raised Jesus from the dead on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.'

It is not merely a matter of 'dead people tend to remain dead,' it is a matter of 'the fundamental principles of nature tend not to be violated.' The probability shrinks considerably when you actually consider the consequences of violating the procession of nature.

Then you ask the CERN director, why are you building hyper-spacial worm holes to restaurants? Shouldn't such an amazing discovery be shared with the world and used for more practical reasons than getting me to the steak house before the Early Bird special ends?

And that's the real reason why I'm skeptical to the point of rejection over Jesus;it makes no sense. Your god reveals himself to a tiny fraction of humanity for a few years and then expects the rest of the world and the subsequent generations to take it all on faith? Why didn't Jesus cure leprosy? Not just a few lepers? Why did he resurrect Lazarus but no one else? Like when he was arrested he could have shown the whole Roman world his divinity by bringing more people back from the dead. Why did he come back from the dead only to vanish in the exact same way stay-dead people do? Why did he only appear to a few Jews in the Middle East? Why no Jesus for China, the Americas and the rest of the world?

It's just like your CERN director making a space-time warping tunnel and then only showing it to a few people in a really limited and ultimately unproductive way and then insisting that the Nobel Prize people give him his medal.

You can talk abstract all you like but when we get into your (or any) religion's specifics it all falls apart.

Let me add one more thing because this gets to the heart of this post. You said that "all things being equal, it is rational to accept the testimony of others."

When it comes to the testimony of the gospels, all things are not equal, because we are now talking about something that is so unlikely that it has not, in our own experiences, ever happened.

I agree with ConverseAtheist that you slightly misconstrued my point. A bodily ressurrection is extremely improbably considering what we know about life and death and therefore warrants more skepticism than even the stranger with the secret tunnel in his house. There is no unfortunate leap here.

Your point about the CERN director, etc. doesn't change my initial argument as all that you've done is introduce new information into my scenario that makes the stranger's claims sound more plausible than they initially would have. Being a different scenario as such it now warrants a different conclusion. Without knowing this extra information my skepticism would still be justified.

The medieval European astronomer whom you mention in your comment would, I believe, be perfectly justified in dismissing that testimony as unlikely (although maybe not dismissing it completely). That he missed a potentially new piece of knowledge about the world can only ever be observed retroactively and therefore cannot factor into the reasonableness of his skepticism. I would rather miss a few rare pieces of genuinely new knowledge about the world by being cautiously skeptical than too readily attach myself to many many more mistaken or utterly wrong assertions.

While the mind should remain open, one must take care not to let ones brains fall completely out.

ConverseAtheist,

I'll warmly accept your correction. ALWAYS is likely too strong. I would simply warn us all that we ought not be too committed to our background assumptions (be they naturalist, supernaturalist, or whatever) because we just may be wrong. We always need to look at and be open to new evidence that challenges our assumptions.

Here's a good example. The medieval European astronomer who accepted the static nature of the Ptolemaic universe might dismiss out of hand the rube's testimony to a strange celestial event (e.g. a super nova). This may have seemed reasonable against the background of the medieval astronomer's assumptions, but as a result he missed a new piece of knowledge about the world.

I'm not sure where you think you're parting ways with AnAtheist.net there -- he says it warrants extreme skepticism; not that 'we can dismiss out of hand the testimony of the apostles because it is ALWAYS more plausible...'.

Extreme skepticism doesn't equal 'know for certain proposition is false'. Cause just as you say -- maybe, just maybe -- that stranger is the director of CERN!

Seriously though, I don't think that you guys are parting ways just yet.