"Even in my lowly bachelor's degree of physical therapy, we had a semester of research methods, which is basically where we learned, not to declare a treatment technique as concrete proof of benefit, when the evidence doesn't show it is concretely proven"
I bet he knows well what evidence means in research about treatment techniques. Fine and dandy.
That doesn't mean he knows how evidence is supposed to look in every other field.
Historical evidence is not evaluated by double-blind protocol.
Metaphysical evidence is not evaluated by arranged experiment with quantifiable factors only studied. You don't quantify "I am conscious and know how it is to be conscious." No more than "if I know I am conscious, I know that beings that look and move like me are conscious" ...
Archaeological evidence is not evaluated by microscopic definitions of Roman Art or Egyptian Mummies or Greek Pottery. If it's disputed sth is genuine, that can come to the rescue, but each is presumed to be recognisable at sight. However, much of it is closer to the medical field, and some people with a medical background are likely to reduce all of historical evidence to archaeological evidence for this reason.
Theological evidence, like Theodicy is also not evaluated by multiple case studies. In fact, when he evaluates the theodicy of Hell, he doesn't use the word "evidence" but he does use the phrase (similarily "evidential sounding") of "multilevel reasoning" when referring to Joshua Tongol. I actually do evaluate the theodicy of Hell with CSL, and I think objections from Annihilationists and Everyone-Gets-Saved-ists are childish.
Charles Hurst seems to ignore this distinction. As a result, he concludes, like many Med School people do, that there can be no evidence of the supernatural. Hence, claiming evidence about it would be, to them, a biassed non-evaluation of evidence. The kind of thing that couldn't pass when researching a treatment technique. He rightly refers to his own unspecified Theism as a "personal belief system" since that particular compromise between Atheist and Naturalist non-Christianity and residues of Christian Theism actually is personal to him. But he thinks this is a modesty owed by every brand of belief in the supernatural, not just by himself. It's ludicrous about Islam and it is ludicrous about Christianity. Both are institutional in their respective Creeds and both make them objective truth claims, meaning, they make them matters of evidence. And one of them is false, it is not Christianity.
Just not double blind studies, usually. If you know a double blind study for Christianity, I'd like to know. Meanwhile, I don't require them./HGL
PS, he misconstrues Ken Ham's calling out on Bill Nye for not having evidence into a claim of having evidence for the Bible. He has that too, but the non-evidence of Bill Nye is not part of it. It's only a rebuttal, against a rival claim of evidence./HGL
PPS, he also showcases a charge of "Spiderman fallacy" ... I've answered it:
When Homer attributes an event to "gods" that don't exist (unlike when like Apollon is a devil), it is misanalysis on his part. And "heros" doesn't mean superheros, it's actually more like "gods" that means that, "heros" simply means men with good courage and bad luck.
By contrast, earliest known audience of Superman or Spiderman or even other DC or Marvel is known to have believed them to be entertainment and only made up for that purpose.
Stories are as said the main evidence there is of historic events. And with ancient history, as often as not or more often, written down centuries later.
Stories are evidence of the past, and "mythological" is a label with very little precise meaning.
PPPS, his views on why we believe in George Washington make for unequal analysis of equal things. The material documents mentioned as unequal in things could be forgeries if George Washington were a myth. The real reason for believing in George Washington is, this is the story that was passed down to us. In the case different stories were passed down to different people, there are relative comparisons of credibility to make. For instance between Gospel accounts of Jesus and Talmud accounts of Jesus. But without the stories of George Washington being the original first president of the entity now known as the US, we would not be convinced by those material pieces of evidence alone./HGL
PPPPS, no, the claim of divinity for Christ doesn't make the burden of proof greater. It makes it more serious, but not greater./HGL
PPPPPS, one thing he gets right, though, is, Jesus believed the Flood happened. He misconstrues this as "Yeshua wasn't divine" because he pretends we know the Flood didn't happen. Ironically, he certainly doesn't have that from double blind studies, the kind of evidence he knows sth about./HGL
No comments:
Post a Comment