Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utastro.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!unc!mcnc!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!think!harvard!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!padraig
From: padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Evidences for Religion (1 of 4)
Message-ID: <219@utastro.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 9-Jun-85 10:23:15 EDT
Article-I.D.: utastro.219
Posted: Sun Jun  9 10:23:15 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 11-Jun-85 07:41:49 EDT
References: <2006@decwrl.UUCP> <749@rayssd.UUCP> <323@scgvaxd.UUCP>
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Lines: 71

> 		      What Is Objective Evidence
> 
>   There is a fine line separating "objective" and "subjective" reasoning.
>   Webster defines "objective" as "that which is verifiable by observation"
>   and "perceptible to persons other than an affected individual", and
>   finally, "expressing the nature of reality as it is apart from personal
>   reflections or feelings".

>   Well, that solves the problem, doesn't it? In order for Christianity to
>   prove as true, its claims should be provable by evidence that is
>   perceptible to persons unaffected by it. But, this is not as easy as it
>   appears. Who is not affected by Christianity? Only those who have never
>   heard of it. But not having heard of it, it would not be perceptible to
>   them. But you say, Christianity does not affect sceptics. But, to reject
>   a belief is to be affected by it. To reject Christianity, one must first
>   understand its claims, then reject them in favor of an alternate view.
>   You have just been affected by Christianity. It's existence was instrumental
>   in the formation of your belief system.

This is all mixed up as far as I can tell. You are confusing proof of
Christianity's truth, with proof of its existence. No one questions that
they have been "affected" by Christianity in the sense that they have
been exposed to it, but this is not the same as being exposed to evidence
that does not rely on another's subjective interpretation.

> ... So what can we consider "objective" as opposed to "subjective"? There has
> to some criteria for a reasonable person to follow in discerning what can
> be considered objective evidence!
> 
>   ...How do I know that Lincoln and Hitler existed? How do I know that Lincoln
>   was an admired President and Hitler was a murdering scoundrel? By the
>   testimony of individuals who observed and recorded their observations.
>   Still, these observations are based on subjective perceptions.
> 
>   I am faced with a choice! I can either toss out all evidences as being
>   "subjective" in nature, or I can follow the reasonable path described
>   above and accept historical testimony as "objective evidence".
 
Not quite. You are overlooking the fact that evidence comes
with many different degrees of reliability to be associated with it.
You do this assignment yourself when you decide in favour of christianity
instead of judaism or islam. In fact it is incorrect to decide first
whether evidence is objective or not, and then follow its implications
wherever they lead. Evidence must be interpreted in the light of
the claims that are to be made based upon it i.e. exotic claims
require evidence of extremely good quality. This is where the problem
with the bible arises; Biblical claims are pretty fantastic, while
the evidence to support has not been clearly demonstrated to be of a
sufficiently high quality.

>   If we can accept historical testimony as reasonable and objective
>   evidence, then we can observe some of the Christian teachings listed
>   earlier. ...

That is a very big "if". Assuming that it is true, you have yet to show
that the listed Christian teachings constitute historical testimony - and
I don't mean that they are old and part of history, but that their
contents are reliable, unbiased, and unexaggerated accounts of early
christianiaty.

>   Incidently, there have been no eyewitnesses to attest to the assumption
>   that Christ was not raised from the dead. No corpse produced either.
> 
> 					      Dan

The last point could be interpreted as indicating that he never died.
As long as you want to be reasonable you should consider that the
burden of proof rests with the claimant therefore the first point is
worthless.

Padraig Houlahan.