I didn't read him as saying that "accepting the historicity of Christ somehow means accepting the Christian religion," but then again I have only read this one page of the website, and I'm currently still inclined to try to interpret it in a way that makes sense to me.Really? So this is what it boils down to? That accepting the historicity of Christ somehow means accepting the Christian religion?This has always been the problem:
https://www.caseagainstfaith.com/why-hi ... eless.html<snip>
The point being, once again, sufficient evidence for one situation is not necessarily sufficient for other situations. Evidence sufficient for historical purposes is not sufficient for purposes of life and death. It is perfectly reasonable and justifiable for me to both accept all the Christian historical claims within the context of history and reject those very same claims in the context of deciding what religion (if any) to accept.
Trying to interpret him charitably, the sense of "reject" here is not to reject as false. It is to reject as not sufficient; i.e., as he writes earlier, "sufficient evidence for one situation is not necessarily sufficient for other situations."
I consider it to be true that the testimonial evidence regarding Jesus is at best hearsay evidence.
Clearly this is not the highest quality of evidence.
For my part, part of the OP is echoing Hume, Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding:
https://iep.utm.edu/miracles/#H4
Hume tells us that we ought to proportion our certainty regarding any matter of fact to the strength of the evidence. We have already examined some of the considerations that go into assessing the strength of testimony; there is no denying that testimony may be very strong indeed when, for example, it may be given by numerous highly reliable and independent witnesses.
Nevertheless, Hume tells us that no testimony can be adequate to establish the occurrence of a miracle. The problem that arises is not so much with the reliability of the witnesses as with the nature of what is being reported. A miracle is, according to Hume, a violation of natural law. We suppose that a law of nature obtains only when we have an extensive, and exceptionless, experience of a certain kind of phenomenon. For example, we suppose that it is a matter of natural law that a human being cannot walk on the surface of water while it is in its liquid state; this supposition is based on the weight of an enormous body of experience gained from our familiarity with what happens in seas, lakes, kitchen sinks, and bathtubs. Given that experience, we always have the best possible evidence that in any particular case, an object with a sufficiently great average density, having been placed onto the surface of a body of water, will sink. According to Hume, the evidence in favor of a miracle, even when that is provided by the strongest possible testimony, will always be outweighed by the evidence for the law of nature which is supposed to have been violated.
Nevertheless, Hume tells us that no testimony can be adequate to establish the occurrence of a miracle. The problem that arises is not so much with the reliability of the witnesses as with the nature of what is being reported. A miracle is, according to Hume, a violation of natural law. We suppose that a law of nature obtains only when we have an extensive, and exceptionless, experience of a certain kind of phenomenon. For example, we suppose that it is a matter of natural law that a human being cannot walk on the surface of water while it is in its liquid state; this supposition is based on the weight of an enormous body of experience gained from our familiarity with what happens in seas, lakes, kitchen sinks, and bathtubs. Given that experience, we always have the best possible evidence that in any particular case, an object with a sufficiently great average density, having been placed onto the surface of a body of water, will sink. According to Hume, the evidence in favor of a miracle, even when that is provided by the strongest possible testimony, will always be outweighed by the evidence for the law of nature which is supposed to have been violated.
There are much more probable explanations of stories (at best hearsay) than the idea of miracles.
I also consider it fair that people would want a higher standard of evidence, rather than just hearsay, if someone is claiming that they should base any significant aspect of their life on what is being claimed.
The analogy of requiring more evidence in a criminal trial (because of how it affects the life of the defendant) does seem appropriate.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Sat Jun 08, 2024 1:08 pm