Glen Morton wrote:
> Part of believing the sense data is believing the credible reports of
> others. We do this in trials, in science etc. We don't repeat every single
> experiment to be sure that our fellow scientists are not lying. Similarly,
> we have to believe the sense data the disciples experienced, or we have no
> basis for beleiving the resurrection. A guy was visibly dead and then he was
> alive. That conclusion can only be based upon various forms of sense
> data--feeling no pulse, seeing and feeling no breathing, seeing the palid
> skin, etc.
I agree with this, but as Moorad pointed out earlier, believing something
based on scientific observation vs. something based on testimony and
evidence seem to be of a different nature, epistemologically.
My impression from several on the list is that the former is regarded with a
higher "value" than the latter, and when in conflict, the former takes
precedence -- e.g. resurrection appears to violate known observational
principles, and is unique (more or less), therefore, it should be more
reasonable to attribute some other explanation to the resurrection story
than the evidential one (supernatural intervention -- a miracle).
Applied to evolution (is this fair?), based on observation, we should
conclude that organic evolution is the more likely explanation for the
progression (and perhaps, origin) of life, rather than a supernatural
intervention/miracle, as one might conclude by the testimony of scripture.
I am probably looking at it na´vely, but I can hardly blame the special
creationist for using the same line of reasoning used here to defend the
resurrection, by extension to defend things like YEC etc.
--Grace and Peace,
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 21 2002 - 23:51:46 EST