Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cybvax0.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
From: mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Evidence for Christianity
Message-ID: <188@cybvax0.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 16-Oct-84 12:22:54 EDT
Article-I.D.: cybvax0.188
Posted: Tue Oct 16 12:22:54 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 17-Oct-84 10:01:24 EDT
References: <1700039@iuvax.UUCP> <567@bunker.UUCP> cybvax0.182 <460@ittral.UUCP>
Organization: Cybermation, Inc., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 70

[Mike Huybensz]
> > The fact is that the evidence for JC's rising from the dead is worth nothing
> > unless you ASSUME the inerrancy of the evidence.
  
[Dan Pellegrino]
> This statement by Mike Huybensz...
> can apply to just about anything, especially historical events
> that preceded the technology that has enabled us to verify certain types of
> evidence.  Applying the argument that Mike uses in his article (#3647), which
> is summarized by his closing statement, quoted above, I wonder if he believes
> anything that we take for granted as history.  Was there really an American
> Revolution or was it really a grand hoax?  How about Christopher Columbus -
> was there really such a fellow?  According to Mike, the written accounts of 
> these people and events could have been written by "co-conspirators".  (Really,
> not according to Mike, but according to Mike's reasoning.)  Any physical 
> evidence, using Mike's rationale, could have been planted.  
> 
> There is much spiritual evidence that many with hardened hearts and veiled
> faces cannot receive.

(I've taken the liberty of inserting my name instead of the erroneous one.)

Yes, a conspiracy theory can be constructed to explain any set of events,
history, or personal experiences.  Even if no conspiracy has actually taken
place.  So conspiracy explanations should be used parsimoniously, and only
when certain criteria make them rationally feasible.

First, some conspiracies do actually take place.  I've witnessed and been
invited to join in one against an individual comparable to an obnoxious
net user.  And you could consider lies by an individual to be a degenerate
case of a conspiracy.  For the purpose of this argument, it is not
important to distinguish between lies of an individual repreated by many
and a conspiracy of several liars.

Next, a conspiracy is unlikely if there are too many independant sources
of evidence.  According the the bible, JC had a close inner
circle of a few more than a dozen.  All information in the New Testament is
attributed to them, and there is no outside corroboration to speak of.
Note that this is not the case for the revolutionary war.  Many thousands
on both sides participated, and left documentary evidence.

A conspiracy may be suspected if there is substantial supression of
information, and selection or rewriting of what to present as history.
There is abundant documentation of supression of "heretical" writings
and designation of "orthodox" writings in Christianity.  Not so for the
revolutionary war.

A conspiracy may be suspected if analogous and contradictary claims
exist.  For example, where are the golden tablets of the Mormons?
How can you explain Mormonism and Christianity and all those other
religions if not by one or more conspiracies?

Finally, people don't conspire just for jollies.  Usually, there is some
motive of the conspirators.  In the case of the Bible, it's obvious that
JC and friends made their living on the preaching circuit.  And not a low
class living: there are numerous passages in the bible describing respectful
treatment (annointing feet, gifts, being invited to rich men's homes, etc.)
Not to mention the fans and the groupies.  Mary Magdelene supposedly reformed
from whoredome: I think that means she became the bedmate of JC and/or some
of the apostles.  There's no reason to assume they were all as pure and
ascetic as the Roman Catholic tradition claims.  Now who would profit (and in
what way) by conspiring to fake the revolutionary war?  And what would you
suggest really happened?

In conclusion, there are good reasons to prefer conspiracy theories when
they meet certain criteria and simplify assumptions (such as eliminating
the need for the supernatural.)
-- 

Mike Huybensz				...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh