Proper application of the argument from silence

[achilles12604]

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=7526

I have debated the proper application for no true scotsman in general chat before because it was being applied incorrectly to a situation.

Now I find circumstances where the argument from silence is being applied incorrectly.

From Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_silence

Notice that this argument requires that there be an expectation of knowledge, and that the silences CAN be explained if there is good reason.

The last few pages of THIS thread Goat has been employing the argument from silence. He has done the same thing in THIS thread.


I feel that he has improperly applied the argument from silence because he has not established that the sources he wants me to cite, have the expectation of having the knowledge. Also, in the TF thread, he stated that silence on the part of the early fathers is the result of the TF not being written. However, he has failed to present any reason that the fathers would be interested in quoting this passage.

Is the argument from silence being applied correctly here or not? Wikipedia above has outlined both proper and improper techniques regarding this argument.

[Furrowed Brow]

I feel myself to be in the dock with goat.

Here is the problem:

• 1/ There are no clear cut external corroborations of the Christian story
  2/ there are no external corroborations at all of the resurrection.
  3/ Everything we do have is dated decades if not centuries after the event.

We have two groups here arguing at cross purposes.

• a) group A posit a physical event x in Jerusalem AD 0 and see the Christian texts as evidence of the event.
  b) group B see the Christian texts themselves as the physical phenomena under investigation. Any x event in Jerusalem AD 0 may be the origin of the story contained in the Christian texts, or it may not.

Group B then requires further evidence that the origin is as group A would have. However group B maintain the event x is thin evidence for the Christian texts given the lack of corroboration, and the lateness of the evidence that exists that refers to event x; because there are too many alternative more plausible embellishment scenarios.

Fact: the Christian version contains stories of raising the dead, walking on water and a resurrection. The claims in themselves contradict physics, biology and chemistry. Therefore it is exponentially more plausible these are embellishments.

It is not down to group B to prove these are embellishments in just the same way they do not need to prove the unlikeness of someone walking on water. It is down to group A to get the Christian version located nearer to the place and time. They can do that with still early Christian documents. However they cannot show the resurrection was not a Christian embellishment without clear cut external corroboration. The argument from silence applied in this case simply points out the thinness of the Christian version and what is needed to fend of the embellishment criticism.

Moreover, once it is accepted that embellishment is the by far most plausible scenario then further questions arise as to just where truth starts story begins. Once we begin to ask those question we seek external corroboration of the more mundane aspects of the Christian Version and find no clear cut corroboration of the crucifixion. We know Pontius Pilate was historical. But the rest is all moot. Can we trust the Christian version for the more mundane details? Group B take the stance that you cannot trust anything on face value from a source that tells you their leader walked on water. This is why group A have an imperative to fill the silence to reach any kind of credible offering that could show the Christian story is more than a Christian story.

Least ways that is the way I see the arguments form up.

[olivergringold]

@Furrowed Brow: You did an excellent job of defending point B but it's also worth saying that we know quite a bit about group A. In particular that the earliest known manuscripts of some books of the Gospels don't have names attached...they were only given around the fourth or fifth century when the Christian Orthodoxy was establishing a finalized canon.

Moreover, historical evidence of Christian Gnosticism (the content of Paul's Epistles) pre-dates Christian Orthodoxy (including evidence of the existence, let alone the authenticity, of the Gospels) by a wide margin, and Gnosticism more concerned itself with knowing Jesus through gnosis, rather than using him as a case study of the Deified Man...indeed, Paul's Epistles mention almost nothing about Jesus' life on Earth whatsoever, save for its end...and many who doubt the Jesus account find it all too easy to interpret that portion of Paul as having taken on a spiritual plane, rather than an Earthly one.

Not only is proposition B supported by the historical record (as you have pointed out in spades), but proposition A stares full-faced into the torrential winds of fact and reality. The argument from silence lets Christians off too easy: There is indeed a record, just not the one that Christians would hope for.

[achilles12604]

However group B maintain the event x is thin evidence for the Christian texts given the lack of corroboration, and the lateness of the evidence that exists that refers to event x; because there are too many alternative more plausible embellishment scenarios.

THIS is exactly what I am aiming for in the "they should have known better" thread.

I will bring up this point there.

Fact: the Christian version contains stories of raising the dead, walking on water and a resurrection. The claims in themselves contradict physics, biology and chemistry. Therefore it is exponentially more plausible these are embellishments.

This is only true if you begin with the premise that these events are impossible. If they are possible, then we are on even footing. Your position is nearly begging the question in order for it to be valid.

Your position reads "Since there is no God, we know that these stories must be embellishments. Since all these stories are embellishments, there obviously is no God."

[Goat]

However group B maintain the event x is thin evidence for the Christian texts given the lack of corroboration, and the lateness of the evidence that exists that refers to event x; because there are too many alternative more plausible embellishment scenarios.

THIS is exactly what I am aiming for in the "they should have known better" thread.

I will bring up this point there.

Fact: the Christian version contains stories of raising the dead, walking on water and a resurrection. The claims in themselves contradict physics, biology and chemistry. Therefore it is exponentially more plausible these are embellishments.

This is only true if you begin with the premise that these events are impossible. If they are possible, then we are on even footing. Your position is nearly begging the question in order for it to be valid.

Your position reads "Since there is no God, we know that these stories must be embellishments. Since all these stories are embellishments, there obviously is no God."

No, but if that makes you feel better, go right ahead. The premise is actually different, but you don't seem to be willing and able to accept that.

It sounds to me you are trying to shift the burden of proof on things, and accuse others of bad logic so you can hold onto your faith.

[achilles12604]

However group B maintain the event x is thin evidence for the Christian texts given the lack of corroboration, and the lateness of the evidence that exists that refers to event x; because there are too many alternative more plausible embellishment scenarios.

THIS is exactly what I am aiming for in the "they should have known better" thread.

I will bring up this point there.

Fact: the Christian version contains stories of raising the dead, walking on water and a resurrection. The claims in themselves contradict physics, biology and chemistry. Therefore it is exponentially more plausible these are embellishments.

This is only true if you begin with the premise that these events are impossible. If they are possible, then we are on even footing. Your position is nearly begging the question in order for it to be valid.

Your position reads "Since there is no God, we know that these stories must be embellishments. Since all these stories are embellishments, there obviously is no God."

No, but if that makes you feel better, go right ahead. The premise is actually different, but you don't seem to be willing and able to accept that.

It sounds to me you are trying to shift the burden of proof on things, and accuse others of bad logic so you can hold onto your faith.

Not at all Goat. Of ANYONE on this forum, I have already proven I am willing to shift my beliefs, and given the correct evidence, toss them aside completely.

However arguing in a circle and demanding extra evidence is hardly convincing and certainly not enough to warrant changing my opinions.

If I am wrong then please correct me.

What do you feel is your premise?

[olivergringold]

It appears to me, and I may be wrong and goat should correct me if I am misinterpreting his stance, that you have put the shoe on the other foot with no justification.

What I mean by that follows from this:

This is only true if you begin with the premise that these events are impossible. If they are possible, then we are on even footing. Your position is nearly begging the question in order for it to be valid.

Your position reads "Since there is no God, we know that these stories must be embellishments. Since all these stories are embellishments, there obviously is no God."

You've failed, for one reason or another, to grasp what the mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof. If God could insert himself into history in the past, why was it so poorly (read: not at all) documented outside of Christian society, when these events would supposedly have had tremendous effects on the outside world? Note that the position is NOT that the stories are embellishments because of the non-existence of God, but that the stories are embellishments flat on their face because there is no supporting evidence. Without evidence to support the stories, and the stories being the only account for the Christian God, the Christian God becomes unlikely.

Your answer to this, (and I may be misunderstanding you, please let me know if I am) seems to be that God has no obligation to prove himself, therefore the events in the Bible are proven as a, or perhaps the only witnessed testament to God's greatness. It starts with the assumption of God, and uses it to assert the stories, rather than assuming a level playing field where nothing is excluded from the demand for proof. Therefore, you are the one using circular reasoning, not the skeptics.

[Furrowed Brow]

This is only true if you begin with the premise that these events are impossible.

The premise is that they break the back of physics, chemistry and biology. Scientific revolutions have been known. But require rigorous repeatable evidence and need to be followed up by a rigoursly worked out alternative theory. Faith does not move this particular mountain.

If they are possible, then we are on even footing.

No. It is possible next Saturday I may win the lottery, it is possible I might not. Great I’ve got a 50/50 chance. Achilles I think when you read that again you are going in to have to quietly admit that one does not fly.

Your position is nearly begging the question in order for it to be valid.

As long as I don’t actually beg the question.

Your position reads "Since there is no God, we know that these stories must be embellishments. Since all these stories are embellishments, there obviously is no God."

No. the position reads: since the physics of buoyancy and the biology of bodily decay are well understood, the chances that in this part of scientific knowledge we’ve missed something are at the Planck scale of possible, so there is no reasonable chance these stories are anything other than embellishment or misinterpretation of events. We approach the text like any historical text with exactly the same background of scientific knowledge and rigour. We could be wrong, but there is no other serious way to approach the evidence.

But anyhow that still gets the enquiry the other way around. you are fixated on event x Jerusalem AD 0, and group b are looking to the documents that exist as evidence of x. We are focused on the origin and nature of the documentary evidence. Yes - the implausibility of the claims surrounding the putative x event informs how we then interpret the text, and their authorship. That is not circular or weak reasoning. If you are saying the resurrection is possible then you don't need any historical documents to assert that. And we need to set up a different thread on the science of walking on water and bodily resurrection. If you are saying it is plausible then again you don't need historical documents. It is already plausible for you. But you are using the texts as evidence for the x event. Group B are saying hold your horses, the evidence don't take you that far, leave Jurasalem AD 0 alone and come back to the documentation we have, when they were written, and who might have written them. Youaddress the texts and you are not AD 0, you are only within several decades and there is ample room for embellishments. If you are saying we are only saying that because we don't believe - well yes that’s right - but rigour and the available independent evidence is on our side. So it is group A who are over estimating the weight of the evidence.

Moreover the argument is not over the resurrection but what the evidence you've got amounts to - and that is not very much. What we are saying is you can move our position with better evidence. Admittedly you will not convince - me at least - of the supernatural resurrection or walking on water - but you will have moved the B group to have to explain some real event that occurred in Jerusalem AD 0 that is very odd and needs some major explaining. But you evidence does not come anywhere near forcing us to that or even take that possibility seriously.

However if the silence could be filled with the kind of evidence being called for then the embellishment theory loses its legs. Then we are down to misinterpretation of events. Which to be honest becomes a much trickier argument. But us old B group critics are not pushed into trickier waters because the evidence you’ve got don’t take us there.

[achilles12604]

It appears to me, and I may be wrong and goat should correct me if I am misinterpreting his stance, that you have put the shoe on the other foot with no justification.

What I mean by that follows from this:

This is only true if you begin with the premise that these events are impossible. If they are possible, then we are on even footing. Your position is nearly begging the question in order for it to be valid.

Your position reads "Since there is no God, we know that these stories must be embellishments. Since all these stories are embellishments, there obviously is no God."

You've failed, for one reason or another, to grasp what the mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof.

Can you support this claim as a fact? Otherwise it is your conclusion, but hardly conclusive.

If God could insert himself into history in the past, why was it so poorly (read: not at all) documented outside of Christian society, when these events would supposedly have had tremendous effects on the outside world?

In short, you and I are 2000 years out of date. Given the context of the times, the events of Jesus life were better recorded than many other events, and even today, if you compare the amount of information we have about Jesus to other contemporay figures, the information we have on Jesus is far and away more complete.

Compare and contrast for example the writings we have regarding Jesus, by both his followers, and those who are not his followers, to that of Socrates. You can quickly see that we have far better and more complete sources on Jesus than we do for Socrates.

Also, you have presented the an idea which basically boils down to, "Why didn't God present me personally with my life experiences enough evidence to believe." to get an answer to this question, I suggest you examine what you personally are requiring for evidence, compare it to other contemporary secular history, and make an honest evaluation as to if you are demanding evidence which is not consistent with the time and place.

Note that the position is NOT that the stories are embellishments because of the non-existence of God, but that the stories are embellishments flat on their face because there is no supporting evidence. Without evidence to support the stories, and the stories being the only account for the Christian God, the Christian God becomes unlikely.

No evidence is an improper position as there is evidence. Now if you took the position that there is not enough evidence of a particular sort to convince YOU, that would be valid. But to flatly claim that there is NO evidence, is illogical. This entire forum wouldn't exist if there was NO evidence to debate.

Your answer to this, (and I may be misunderstanding you, please let me know if I am) seems to be that God has no obligation to prove himself, therefore the events in the Bible are proven as a, or perhaps the only witnessed testament to God's greatness.

Very close. Not only does God not have an obligation to prove himself, I feel that it is wiser for God NOT to prove himself.

It starts with the assumption of God, and uses it to assert the stories, rather than assuming a level playing field where nothing is excluded from the demand for proof. Therefore, you are the one using circular reasoning, not the skeptics.

I agree that I start with the presumption of God. I also point out that the skeptics start with the presumption of no God. Hence my entire post.

Are you trying to claim that skeptics start evaluating evidence with absolutely ZERO preconceptions?

[olivergringold]

You've failed, for one reason or another, to grasp what the mythicist position ultimately is: a demand for proof.

Can you support this claim as a fact? Otherwise it is your conclusion, but hardly conclusive.

Can I prove that skeptics demand proof? I'm not entirely sure what you're asking for here.

In short, you and I are 2000 years out of date. Given the context of the times, the events of Jesus life were better recorded than many other events, and even today, if you compare the amount of information we have about Jesus to other contemporay figures, the information we have on Jesus is far and away more complete.

You have familiarized yourself with sources I'm apparently not aware of, unless you're talking about Josephus, in which case that is a separate debate. In short, there is no secular evidence of Jesus that I know of. If you think otherwise, feel free to correct me.

Compare and contrast for example the writings we have regarding Jesus, by both his followers, and those who are not his followers, to that of Socrates. You can quickly see that we have far better and more complete sources on Jesus than we do for Socrates.

With Socrates, we have the accounts of his students, as well references to him in the writings of people who immediately proceeded him in history, to say nothing of enemy attestation.

To compare, Jesus has no enemy attestation, including Josephus...it's just the Gospels, several people who mention "Chrestus" having nothing to do with the Jesus, and Josephus. The Gospels weren't named until the fourth century, and could not have been written until after 70AD unless you assume God as a starting point. Josephus is easier to puncture than a silk balloon. Again: what secular accounts are you referring to?

Also, you have presented the an idea which basically boils down to, "Why didn't God present me personally with my life experiences enough evidence to believe." to get an answer to this question, I suggest you examine what you personally are requiring for evidence, compare it to other contemporary secular history, and make an honest evaluation as to if you are demanding evidence which is not consistent with the time and place.

If the events of the Gospels were to be replicated modernly, miracles and all, that would be more than sufficient to inform me of the reality of their testimony. However, there are no secular accounts to corroborate the more fantastical details of the Gospel accounts, and there is no evidence of supernatural interference in the natural universe. Non-belief is the default.

No evidence is an improper position as there is evidence. Now if you took the position that there is not enough evidence of a particular sort to convince YOU, that would be valid. But to flatly claim that there is NO evidence, is illogical. This entire forum wouldn't exist if there was NO evidence to debate.

You have it backwards: If I were to claim that evidence didn't satiate me, that would NOT be valid. The only way I can reach this conclusion is if the Gospel accounts are either refuted or refutable. I shall now state that I am under this delusion: Enlighten me.

I agree that I start with the presumption of God. I also point out that the skeptics start with the presumption of no God. Hence my entire post.

Are you trying to claim that skeptics start evaluating evidence with absolutely ZERO preconceptions?

Everybody is subject to biases, however I will say that every skeptic I have ever met absolutely tries to be objective when considering evidence. Do remember that I began my search for truth with, like you, God as a pre-conception. It took a very log time between my leaving Judaism and joining atheism when I was a Deist...a universe without a God was a difficult pill to swallow. As I slowly, but rightly realized, this is no substitute for reality.

Of course people are biased...but to say that our perceptions are inherently colored such that we would be predisposed against the Gospels would be foolhardy at best and insulting at worst.

To clarify, I start no study of a miraculous claim with "No God" as a given.