Responding To Wayfarer On My Blog

[mfbukowski]

Does it matter if Alma existed? If Joseph Smith was a prophet and his words are in Alma 32, I accept them as prophetic, relevant, normative, and valuable to me. I accept the Book of Mormon as the word of god. I don't accept the Chronicles of Narnia as the word of god in the same way. One is scripture, one is not. that's the difference. Whether Alma existed or not, I neither believe nor disbelieve, nor do I doubt he lived. It's immaterial to my faith.

I think what you really mean here is that you cannot know scientifically if Alma existed, but it doesn't matter to your belief that he was a prophet.

Obviously if he never existed he could not be a "prophet" any more than he could have uttered the words he allegedly uttered. But what you are saying is that 1- the fact that you cannot prove he existed does not mean he did not exist, and that you accept the MESSAGE attributed to Alma as of prophetic importance regardless of whether or not he in fact existed.

I hope you can see that is a huge difference.

Also implied is that it is impossible to "know" a statement which is false.

I think you would do better if you postulated that "knowledge" is a psychological state of certainty which has little to do with the truth or falsity of propositions.

But I suppose we have been all over these points a million times before and we didn't get far any of those other times either.

What is a "professional ontologist" anyway?

[Sky]

I completely accept the account. But from an epistemological point of view, I need to ask a few questions:

1. Do you know this happened?

2. Do you have evidence that it happened?

3. Is the evidence so sure that you can assert Justified True Belief on this?

4. Is it not possible that they were deceiving us?

5. Or...that this was a vision with 'spiritual eyes' that was in no way physical.

6. How does the claim "that by him, through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created" get asserted by virtue of seeing Jesus on the right hand of god?

While we can assert these claims in faith, we must also recognize that such claims are empirically unprovable. Alma's middle way is that we do not cast these things out by our disbelief, but rather, continue to have faith until we ourselves, see for ourselves, the face of god and jesus at his right hand. Until then, we do not know -- we do not have perfect knowledge, and we must remain firmly in the middle-way of faith.

I rely heavily on this scripture in D&C 46: 13-14:

To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

[Bullfighter]

I still see no good reason to build my life around the words of a fictional character.

As an imperfect comparison, do you find value in Christ's parables? Does it matter if the characters in them actually existed? Or if they were recorded precisely as Jesus actually gave them? I think many scriptural teachings and stories have value independent of their historicity.

Can Joseph Smith be a true prophet without the characters of the Book of Mormon having lived in ancient America? I believe that he can. The value of the Book of Mormon to me is not in its historical accuracy but in the fullness of the gospel contained therein.

I don't reject that the stories in the Book of Mormon may be historical and would be more than pleased if archaeological investigation bears that out, but if the entire hemisphere is dug up and no evidence is ever found of ancient Nephite and Lamanite inhabitants, my faith will be unaffected, it isn't based on that foundation.

[mfbukowski]

While we can assert these claims in faith, we must also recognize that such claims are empirically unprovable. Alma's middle way is that we do not cast these things out by our disbelief, but rather, continue to have faith until we ourselves, see for ourselves, the face of god and jesus at his right hand. Until then, we do not know -- we do not have perfect knowledge, and we must remain firmly in the middle-way of faith.

But what you are missing is that ALMA NEVER SAYS ONCE THAT PERFECT KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE.

Never. Read it for yourself. It seems to say that, but then it fudges!

34 And now, behold, is your knowledge perfect? Yea, your knowledge is perfect in that thing, and your faith is dormant; and this because you know, for ye know that the word hath swelled your souls, and ye also know that it hath sprouted up, that your understanding doth begin to be enlightened, and your mind doth begin to expand.

35 O then, is not this real? I say unto you, Yea, because it is light; and whatsoever is light, is good, because it is discernible, therefore ye must know that it is good; and now behold, after ye have tasted this light is your knowledge perfect?

36 Behold I say unto you, Nay; neither must ye lay aside your faith, for ye have only exercised your faith to plant the seed that ye might try the experiment to know if the seed was good.

All it says after that is that you experience the "fruits" of your belief.

It never again mentions "perfect knowledge" because perfect knowledge- in a positivistic sense- becomes irrelevant.

What knowledge IS is certainty about the fruits of an action or belief, and that even goes for scientific knowledge as well. Scientific knowledge is always changing- we reap its fruits for a while until some better theory/explanation comes along.

Your definition of knowledge in a postitivistic sense is an impossible chimera and that is why virtually no one in the philosophical community still holds it as an ideal.

The best we can get for truth is some kind of pragmatic understanding or coherence with other statements believed to be true, or the deflationary theories which combine some of the others.

Edited January 5, 2013 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

While we can assert these claims in faith, we must also recognize that such claims are empirically unprovable.

But you are barking up the wrong tree!

These claims are not supposed to be empirically provable!

Are you familiar with deflationary theories of truth? I would never get into this in a forum such as this, but it seems you are making quite an issue of it and you seem somewhat acquainted with philosophical issues?

[Sky]

As an imperfect comparison, do you find value in Christ's parables? Does it matter if the characters in them actually existed? Or if they were recorded precisely as Jesus actually gave them? I think many scriptural teachings and stories have value independent of their historicity.

Can Joseph Smith be a true prophet without the characters of the Book of Mormon having lived in ancient America? I believe that he can. The value of the Book of Mormon to me is not in its historical accuracy but in the fullness of the gospel contained therein.

I don't reject that the stories in the Book of Mormon may be historical and would be more than pleased if archaeological investigation bears that out, but if the entire hemisphere is dug up and no evidence is ever found of ancient Nephite and Lamanite inhabitants, my faith will be unaffected, it isn't based on that foundation.

I think there is a difference between parables and something that is presented as actual history. But the Book of Mormon has plenty of allegory - Jacob chapter 5 comes to mind. And it is presented as an allegory.

My faith isn't built entirely on the foundation of the Nephites and Lamanites having actually existed, but if they didn't, then it certainly would put a huge wrench in my faith - one that I don't think I could simply overlook.

Either the resurrected Christ appeared in person to the Nephites, or he didn't. If he didn't, then the whole foundation of the Book of Mormon falls flat on its face. Kind of like a sick joke.

[wayfarer]

I think what you really mean here is that you cannot know scientifically if Alma existed, but it doesn't matter to your belief that he was a prophet.

I cannot know, nor do i think the fact if his existence matters.

Obviously if he never existed he could not be a "prophet" any more than he could have uttered the words he allegedly uttered. But what you are saying is that 1- the fact that you cannot prove he existed does not mean he did not exist, and that you accept the MESSAGE attributed to Alma as of prophetic importance regardless of whether or not he in fact existed.

only the latter clause matters to me: I accept the MESSAGE attributed to Alma as of prophetic importance regardless of whether or not he in fact existed. If Joseph Smith wrote this out of his own inspiration, then it is still completely the word of god, and normatively imperative. Alma's existence is completely irrelevant.

think you would do better if you postulated that "knowledge" is a psychological state of certainty which has little to do with the truth or falsity of propositions.

that would certainly apply to most propositions. empirically falsifiable exisistential propositions would allow proof beyond the emotional state of certainty.

[Bullfighter]

But what you are missing is that ALMA NEVER SAYS ONCE THAT PERFECT KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE.

Never. Read it for yourself. It seems to say that, but then it fudges!

All it says after that is that you experience the "fruits" of your belief.

It never again mentions "perfect knowledge" because perfect knowledge- in a positivistic sense- becomes irrelevant.

What knowledge IS is certainty about the fruits of an action or belief, and that even goes for scientific knowledge as well. Scientific knowledge is always changing- we reap its fruits for a while until some better theory/explanation comes along.

Your definition of knowledge in a postitivistic sense is an impossible chimera and that is why virtually no one in the philosophical community still holds it as an ideal.

The best we can get for truth is some kind of pragmatic understanding or coherence with other statements believed to be true.

Joseph Smith seemed to think a perfect knowledge was possible:

"Now what is this other Comforter? It is no more nor less than the Lord Jesus Christ Himself; and this is the sum and substance of the whole matter; that when any man obtains this last Comforter, he will have the personage of Jesus Christ to attend him, or appear unto him from time to time, and even He will manifest the Father unto him, and they will take up their abode with him, and the visions of the heavens will be opened unto him, and the Lord will teach him face to face, and he may have a perfect knowledge of the mysteries of the Kingdom of God; and this is the state and place the ancient Saints arrived at when they had such glorious visions---Isaiah, Ezekiel, John upon the Isle of Patmos, St. Paul in the three heavens, and all the Saints who held communion with the general assembly and Church of the Firstborn." - Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 149-151; June 27, 1839.

However, I agree that our approach to acquiring knowledge through faith must be granular as Alma describes rather than aggregate, we can test principle by principle and find for ourselves whether the fruit of each is good, thereby attaining some level of experience based knowledge. For the remainder, things that are difficult for us to test in our own actions such as historical accuracy, I think we rely on faith and seek the type of confirmation Joseph Smith described.

[mfbukowski]

empirically falsifiable exisistential propositions would allow proof beyond the emotional state of certainty.

That's where we differ.

All states of certainty are emotional. I think that is blatantly clear. "Being rational" is itself a value we take upon ourselves emotionally. No one "likes" to be called "irrational"; were that not true we would not see being rational as a "good" thing.

"One should be rational" is itself a value judgement and therefore cannot be proven to be true or false. Certainty has nothing to do with rationality. I bet that line makes it to the other board, they seemed to like one recently I made about logic.

Isn't high school fun?

[mfbukowski]

Alma's existence is completely irrelevant.

Then why are you arguing about it so much?

Why argue pages and pages about something that is ultimately irrelevant? That makes the pages and pages irrelevant.

[mfbukowski]

Joseph Smith seemed to think a perfect knowledge was possible:

Not in a positivistic sense. Positivism hadn't even been invented yet. And Joseph was right- it is possible, by knowing the fruits of one's beliefs.

The problem is the illusion of "empirical verifiability". All that can be verified empirically is someone's interpretation of what someone else calls "real".

Empirical verifiability as a criterion for making a proposition true begs the question by making "real" or "true" only those things which can be empirically verified. It defines what is real in a circular way.

Edited January 6, 2013 by mfbukowski

[wayfarer]

What kind of "things" are true? Let me suggest that no-thing is true, but propositions may be true or false.

certainly. but as you note here

"I know the church is true" is not speaking about a "thing"- because things- churches- are not true or false. If one is checking a wall to see if it is "true" with a plumb-bob for example, that might be an exception because "true" has many meanings and being "square" is one of them.

But obviously we are talking about a complex set of beliefs and a bundle of propositions with very vague boundaries when we say that we "know the church is true".

Yet we understand perfectly what that sentence means. In the most general terms, it means that one has a certainty that following the path of what the church teaches will lead one to a knowledge of God better than other paths to God, and that this bundle of beliefs have given your life meaning and happiness. It also means a lot more and its meaning varies enormously.

which brings us back to original statement that no-thing can be true. the church is indeed a thing, an artifact, and the statement is of course completely invalid. if i say the church is true, and that means, "effective at leading one to a knowledge of and compliance with god" in some form, does that automatically mean that all other paths are not? upon what basis is this claim even in the remotist sense valid? i think it is more akin to "i totally love my church and i will be true to it forever and ever".

But attempting to put some kind of positivistic definition to this sort of statement is to distort is true meaning beyond what the needs of communication would dictate. Defining it as you attempt is to rip it from its context and therefore destroy its meaning in attempting to deconstruct it.

in my impression, such a meaningless expression should be completely deconstructed when one is struggling with the reality that the aggregate is no longer true. And in my impression, alma is saying exactly that...reconstruction allows me to take smaller propositions: "does the church have value?"...and the answer can be an emphatic "yes"!!! we're getting somewhere...we are constructing a foundation of faith, and even "knowledge" of normative truth values. doubt can be set aside on these things, because we know something: that the church has value...next...

[wayfarer]

That's where we differ.

All states of certainty are emotional. I think that is blatantly clear. "Being rational" is itself a value we take upon ourselves emotionally. No one "likes" to be called "irrational"; were that not true we would not see being rational as a "good" thing.

"One should be rational" is itself a value judgement and therefore cannot be proven to be true or false. Certainty has nothing to do with rationality. I bet that line makes it to the other board, they seemed to like one recently I made about logic.

Isn't high school fun?

I am completely aware of the argument (and literature) that certainty is an emotional state. but you exist, undeniably, provably. you may not be mfbukowski...or any number of other claims, but you exist. you use the label mfbukowski. joseph smith was a real person. these are all empirical, falsifiable, provable things for which evidence is readily available to anyone who cares to look. certainly an empirical claim with evidence is on a different level than an unprovable proposition.

[mfbukowski]

My faith isn't built entirely on the foundation of the Nephites and Lamanites having actually existed, but if they didn't, then it certainly would put a huge wrench in my faith - one that I don't think I could simply overlook.

No worries. Their existence is totally non-falsifiable, especially if they lived among the regional peoples like the Maya et al.

And that seems to be the direction scholarship is headed. They might well have been an ethnic minority that didn't get much mention in the carvings etc.

[mfbukowski]

which brings us back to original statement that no-thing can be true. the church is indeed a thing, an artifact, and the statement is of course completely invalid.

But no one means that literally! It is an expression, a manner of speech.

Perhaps it is taken to mean something like "the bundle of truth-claims made by the Church of JSLDS are true" but such a statement implies some epistemological sophistication certainly not intended by the expression. What truth claims are we talking about? What is truth at all- all of these would be implied by such a statement and it is clearly not what is intended by the statement in the vernacular.

It really means something like "I love the church and all it stands for is true in my life". And that is pretty much what you are saying anyway. Where's the beef?

[go_utes01]

Wayfarer,

It seems that in your calls for "evidence" or lack of "evidence," you actually mean scientific evidence or empirical evidence. Why isn't a spiritual manifestation "evidence" of the truth in your experience? Why isn't an Alma 32 testing evidence of the truth? If a person receives a spiritual witness from Heavenly Father, I think that person is completely justified in saying that their belief/knowledge is both rational and evidence-based. Do you disagree? Thanks.

[mfbukowski]

I am completely aware of the argument (and literature) that certainty is an emotional state. but you exist, undeniably, provably. you may not be mfbukowski...or any number of other claims, but you exist. you use the label mfbukowski. joseph smith was a real person. these are all empirical, falsifiable, provable things for which evidence is readily available to anyone who cares to look. certainly an empirical claim with evidence is on a different level than an unprovable proposition.

Who doubts that Joseph existed? I mean maybe his real name was Fred, but who doubts that?

Empirical claims with evidence are only good for activities which require empirical proof. If you are shooting human beings to the moon on the nose of a big roman candle, you better have empirical evidence that such a gizmo is actually not going to kill anyone.

But no one expects you to have empirical evidence that Jesus is the Christ- the Son of God who is the savior of the world and who came back from death. NO ONE expects that- billions of people believe that without a single thought that empirical evidence of such a thing is even possible!

They live their lives "knowing" that He is their savior without one iota of empirical evidence.

Is their statement that they "know" he is their savior "invalid"? Of course not! It's "truth" is not measured in that way because it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure such statements that way. They know that just as well as we do here in our ivory towers! So what do they mean by that?

Clearly something else that the way we are taking it. To take that statement as even supposedly "empirically verifiable" is to totally miss its true meaning. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY MEAN BY IT! They might mean "it really happened" but they know full well that proving that it happened is another issue.

It's like getting out a tape measure to measure the weight of a pound of flour. Wrong tool for the task!

So arguing about such statements being empirically verifiable or not misses the point completely.

[mfbukowski]

Wayfarer,

It seems that in your calls for "evidence" or lack of "evidence," you actually mean scientific evidence or empirical evidence. Why isn't a spiritual manifestation "evidence" of the truth in your experience? Why isn't an Alma 32 testing evidence of the truth? If a person receives a spiritual witness from Heavenly Father, I think that person is completely justified in saying that their belief/knowledge is both rational and evidence-based. Do you disagree? Thanks.

I agree completely.

[wayfarer]

But what you are missing is that ALMA NEVER SAYS ONCE THAT PERFECT KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE.

Never. Read it for yourself. It seems to say that, but then it fudges!

I didn't miss it. knowledge itself becomes as irrelevant to me as belief.

It never again mentions "perfect knowledge" because perfect knowledge- in a positivistic sense- becomes irrelevant.

we are tracking 100% here.

What knowledge IS is certainty about the fruits of an action or belief, and that even goes for scientific knowledge as well. Scientific knowledge is always changing- we reap its fruits for a while until some better theory/explanation comes along.

which is why i see the value of applying the same heuristic to religious belief. many LDS are caught up in some sort of belief isomorph that places every prophetic utterance as being "true" forever, and fail to realize that when better facts come along, it's time to discard the prior "knowledge".

Your definition of knowledge in a postitivistic sense is an impossible chimera and that is why virtually no one in the philosophical community still holds it as an ideal.

i simply proposed JTB as one definition. it is not necessarily "my definition". i am well aware of the position of the philosophical community.

The best we can get for truth is some kind of pragmatic understanding or coherence with other statements believed to be true, or the deflationary theories which combine some of the others.

i am not familiar with deflationary theories. let me read your ref from above.

i am not sure that concurrence with any predefined schema is the "best we can get". the idea that a new "truth" needs to be concurrent with "other statements defined to be true" may lead us to building a schema on sand. this is a prevailing problem with many disaffected mormons whose aggregated truth assertions turn out to have profound falsehoods/misconceptions at the root of the schema. true, since all of our stored knowledge must end up in an associative neural schema, we tend to associate new "truths" with other "perceptions" in our brain...but one key to enlightenment is emptying the mind of these preconceptions so that we can observe something that may not fit our paradigms.

[wayfarer]

Wayfarer,

It seems that in your calls for "evidence" or lack of "evidence," you actually mean scientific evidence or empirical evidence. Why isn't a spiritual manifestation "evidence" of the truth in your experience? Why isn't an Alma 32 testing evidence of the truth? If a person receives a spiritual witness from Heavenly Father, I think that person is completely justified in saying that their belief/knowledge is both rational and evidence-based. Do you disagree? Thanks.

it depends on what you are trying to establish as being "true". spiritual evidence is superior to physical evidence in establishing spiritual truths. physical evidence is equally necessary in establishing physical (empirical) truths. spiritual evidence is not a valid or reliable means to establish a physical or historical fact.

Edited January 6, 2013 by wayfarer

[mfbukowski]

it depends on what you are trying to establish as being "true". spiritual evidence is superior to physical evidence in establishing spiritual truths. physical evidence is equally necessary in establishing physical (empirical) truths. spiritual evidence is not a valid or reliable means to establish a physical or historical fact.

So where's the disagreement?

Why are we even talking? I mean I could be playing some serious games of solitaire here or get some rigorous thumb-twiddling going.

[wayfarer]

Who doubts that Joseph existed? I mean maybe his real name was Fred, but who doubts that?

Empirical claims with evidence are only good for activities which require empirical proof. If you are shooting human beings to the moon on the nose of a big roman candle, you better have empirical evidence that such a gizmo is actually not going to kill anyone.

But no one expects you to have empirical evidence that Jesus is the Christ- the Son of God who is the savior of the world and who came back from death. NO ONE expects that- billions of people believe that without a single thought that empirical evidence of such a thing is even possible!

They live their lives "knowing" that He is their savior without one iota of empirical evidence.

Is their statement that they "know" he is their savior "invalid"? Of course not! It's "truth" is not measured in that way because it is IMPOSSIBLE to measure such statements that way. They know that just as well as we do here in our ivory towers! So what do they mean by that?

Clearly something else that the way we are taking it. To take that statement as even supposedly "empirically verifiable" is to totally miss its true meaning. THAT IS NOT WHAT THEY MEAN BY IT! They might mean "it really happened" but they know full well that proving that it happened is another issue.

It's like getting out a tape measure to measure the weight of a pound of flour. Wrong tool for the task!

So arguing about such statements being empirically verifiable or not misses the point completely.

*I* am not. we are completely in sync here, but for the life of me you seem to indicate that we disagree. since this is something unprovable, it goes into the faith column. there are those who require us to "know" that jesus physically resurrected. that would be an empirically measurable event. if cameras were present, it could be documented. it either happened or didn't. if we had a handle me and see event, that could be called evidence as well. but we don't...not really. we have accounts written generations after it happened, zero contemporaneous accounts, and naught but spiritual eyes in the current era.

as a spirital value, jesus lives. i do not know if he physically rose from the dead, nor do i really care about it -- i will live my life in harmony with the Way regardless.

[wayfarer]

So where's the disagreement?

Why are we even talking? I mean I could be playing some serious games of solitaire here or get some rigorous thumb-twiddling going.

where we differ, in my impression, is a couple nonsubstantive things.

1. you are more adept and precise in the formal language of epistemology. In my professional area, formal epistemology gives way to practical epistemology: how do we know we can trust this person? what evidence do they present for their identity and factual claims. my misuse of the language will get in the way.

2. i relate and identify with the middle way community because I have been there, and thus I use identifiers that often cause confusion to other believers that value literal belief.

3. i don't see a faithful middle way as a compromise, but rather, an authentic, considered life. it certainly is neither "cafeteria mormonism" nor is it lukewarm.

Edited January 6, 2013 by wayfarer

[Daniel Peterson]

I don't seem to be able to respond directly to your blog, but I would if I could. Perhaps, if you're willing, I can link up with your Patheos admin and see what is going on -- I'm clearly posting, but apparently my posts go to the bit-bucket.

I have absolutely no idea what the problem might be. So far as I'm aware, nobody else is having a problem or has ever had one in commenting on my blog.

First, I want to make clear that we need to close down the contention that has characterized the former thread. It brought out the worst in both of us (my opinion), so I'm vacating that discussion, and will not return to that dark side again.

I'm afraid that I can't honestly say that I feel equally guilty. I sought only to defend myself against specific attacks on that thread. I won't lie and say otherwise.

You are correct in stating that my use of terms, at times, tends to obscure the discourse. There is a technical aspect to my use of the terms. In epistemology, one definition of "knowledge" is "Justified True Belief", thus as we assert, in testimony, that we "know" something, we tend to mean that we believe, with spiritual justification, that X is 'true', and are at least in some ways correct in saying "I know X".

The problem comes when X is an aggregate belief.

I don't disagree. I recognize the problem.

I think a lot of people in the "Middle Way" --- or for discussion's sake, whatever we want to call the place where people don't believe the whole banana --- we struggle with this all or nothing proposition -- we listen to Tad Callister's talk, or Gordon B Hinckley's "Loyalty" talk, and here, clearly, "there is no middle ground" -- it's either all true or "biggest fraud in history". How do we deal with that?

An interesting question. Worth discussing. I have to be hasty right now, though, as I'm headed out the door in a minute. And, I have to say, I've given far more time to message board exchanges over the past few days than I want or can afford.

One approach is to find some way that it still can be "all true", even if highly unlikely. For example, as anachronisms and DNA evidence, along with geography features -- progressively create a smaller and smaller physical space in which the Nephites and Lamanites could have lived -- Yup, I will acknowledge it is "possible" that there was indeed a physical Nephite/Lamanite population -- but it's getting to the point that such a thing stretches one's mind and credibility. Let's not deviate and debate this point -- Let's just say, for the sake of this discussion that this is a difficult path for a lot of people to accept. I, personally, will grant it is possible.

For the record, I don't agree entirely with your characterization of the present state of things regarding either DNA or geography.

Another approach is to evaluate what the subclaims are, and to test each one, as Alma 32 advises.

Again, I don't disagree.

I've run out of time, and will have to respond to the middle portion later.

This is a much deeper issue. I know what we teach, and fully and completely accept the literal resurrection of Christ as what we teach. Further, I really do *believe* (in a justified way) that I have a deep and personal relationship with Jesus. He lives. But when I look at it *reasonably*, as in, can I swear in a court case that I have tangible evidence of the resurrection? Am I sure that the writers of ancient books actually got it right and didn't have some other agenda? No. Reason cannot prove the resurrection -- it is fully unknowable. That's why I said I neither believe it or disbelieve, but I sure as hell (literally) hope for it and try my best to live my life as if it is true. That's where I think "Faith" materially differs from belief.

I agree that reason cannot fully prove the resurrection. I don't agree, however, that that makes it fully unknowable. We routinely say that we "know" things -- including very ordinary things -- that, strictly speaking, we can't prove. I know, for example, that I saw Sandy Koufax pitch his first no-hitter for the Dodgers. Can I prove it at this remove in time? No. I have no ticket stubs, my dad, my mother, and my brother are dead, etc. We also "know" things for which the evidence, while strong, isn't absolutely conclusive in any strictly logical sense. We "know," for example, that, if we step off a thousand foot cliff, we will fall to our deaths. And yet maybe we won't. Weird things happen. We "know" that the sun will rise tomorrow, because it has risen for the past several billion mornings. But this knowledge is not logically ironclad.

As regards Christ's resurrection specifically, I think there's good historical evidence to support it. (And I'm not alone in this.)

Your paragraph just above, though, if it's an accurate self-description, makes me wonder why on earth you thought that Professors Hamblin and Midgley and I were targeting you. You're absolutely not the kind of person, from that paragraph, that I would have had in mind, even if I had written "vile polemics" against "anti-christs."

[CV75]

I don't imagine that the moderators here are eager for me to open up a new back-and-forth with wayfarer, let alone with his fellow-travellers, on this board. And I don't blame them. I hesitate even to open my blog up to the nonsense that is very likely to ensue, and, if it gets very bad at all, will certainly shut things down.

I don't understand what you would be having difficulty with. Can you not access the blog or open the comments?

My substantive response -- it's not deep substance, of course, but relatively speaking, it's substantial -- is entirely contained, thus far, within a single comment following my blog entry. I quote wayfarer's remarks and respond to them.

I can access the blog and read the comments but I got bogged down--having jumped in very late with my two cents on the now-closed thread, I thought I might find a succinct epilogue to wrap things up. Not to throw gas on the fire, I began with trying to find the substantive content in wayfarer's post (at the top of your blog, right?) and failed, and so thought I'd just ask here for a summary. But noting the current length of this thread, it must be more of the same -- but thanks for trying!