Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Response to "FrancestheMagnificent" on the Resurrection
(I am responding to this post)
The Resurrection is scientifically impossible.
That is false. There are legitimate criticisms of the Resurrection but this ain't one of them.
At this point, many Christians will cite “miracles” to explain The Resurrection. That’s inappropriate.
No, it is not. Elsewhere Frances cites the Humean maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Although Sagan popularized it, it originated with Hume.) But Hume's a priori rejection of miracles has been the subject of criticism, and rightly so.
Anyway, one might object to the Resurrection on epistemological grounds but claiming that it is scientifically impossible is pseudoscientific nonsense (As it is not within the purview of the sciences.)
|
The Resurrection is scientifically impossible.
That is false. There are legitimate criticisms of the Resurrection but this ain't one of them.
At this point, many Christians will cite “miracles” to explain The Resurrection. That’s inappropriate.
No, it is not. Elsewhere Frances cites the Humean maxim "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." (Although Sagan popularized it, it originated with Hume.) But Hume's a priori rejection of miracles has been the subject of criticism, and rightly so.
Anyway, one might object to the Resurrection on epistemological grounds but claiming that it is scientifically impossible is pseudoscientific nonsense (As it is not within the purview of the sciences.)
# posted by O'Brien @ 6/14/2006 07:11:00 PM 
