I will be on BBC1 Big Questions programme again next Sunday 10am (May 6th). This one was prerecorded yesterday. The whole programme was devoted to children and religion.
(Published in Faith and Philosophy 2011. Volume 28, Issue 2, April 2011. Stephen Law. Pages 129-151) EVIDENCE, MIRACLES AND THE EXISTENCE OF JESUS Stephen Law Abstract The vast majority of Biblical historians believe there is evidence sufficient to place Jesus’ existence beyond reasonable doubt. Many believe the New Testament documents alone suffice firmly to establish Jesus as an actual, historical figure. I question these views. In particular, I argue (i) that the three most popular criteria by which various non-miraculous New Testament claims made about Jesus are supposedly corroborated are not sufficient, either singly or jointly, to place his existence beyond reasonable doubt, and (ii) that a prima facie plausible principle concerning how evidence should be assessed – a principle I call the contamination principle – entails that, given the large proportion of uncorroborated miracle claims made about Jesus in the New Testament documents, we should, in the absence of indepen
Comments
Thanks
Richard Cooper
On the whole, I found this to be an excellent and overdue episode of the Big Questions, and especially enjoyed yours and Andrew Copson's extremely considered contributions. However, the one point I would like to pick up on is your notion of teflon-coating belief (or non-belief) systems. (A useful metaphor I thought.)
I'm just not sure the late Hitchens (and colleagues) do attempt to teflon-coat the atheist position in response to challenges from history. My understanding is that he/they take issue with the use of Stalin and/or Pol Pot (etc.) as examples of how political systems/leaders fall down without the moral guidance/brakes of religion. If I have this right, Hitchens notes how the Stalinist system (for instance) could almost be considered 'religious' - or at least holds strong parallels - as it too demands unquestioned allegiance to a single (pseudo-divine) patriarch figure, and his moral/political system. It also flourishes on the condemnation of other, competing, belief systems, and discourages/punishes independent-thought/dissent. The cult of personality, and the promise of greater goodness - often illusions - could also be considered similar. In this sense (and only this sense) I see how this might be considered religious (or at least synonymous), albeit without any spiritual component. (To be 'like a religion' or 'religious' about something, doesn't always require literal religious beleif/practice.) I'd therefore argue this is different to an attempt at'teflon-coating'.
In fact, thinking about it now, some of these are parallels you yourself identify in 'Believing Bullshit', only you're perhaps more likely to connect Stalinist and religious systems as 'intellectual black holes', rather than being different versions of each other. Not sure...
Anyway, thanks for your time.
Adzcliff