Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!decvax!wivax!linus!allegra!eagle!harpo!floyd!cmcl2!philabs!sbcs!debray
From: debray@sbcs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Resurrection and the Burden of Proof
Message-ID: <358@sbcs.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 28-May-83 10:48:30 EDT
Article-I.D.: sbcs.358
Posted: Sat May 28 10:48:30 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 3-Jun-83 06:27:51 EDT
Lines: 30


Vickie Klick (ihuxu!klick), responding to an article by Tim Maroney, says:

		`` Tim Maroney cites the "innocent until proven guilty"
		judicial concept as justification for placing the burden
		of proof (of the Resurrection) on Christians.  He makes
		it appear that this judicial concept is a very old one.
		Consider that in the country from which we derived much
		of our legal system, Great Britain, the judicial position
		is *still* "guilty until proven innocent"! By historical
		precedent, then, the non-believers have the burden of
		refuting the Resurrection. ''

Come on, Vickie! I agree that *much* of the American legal system was
derived from the British; that's not to say that *all* of it was. The
significance of G.B.'s judicial position being one of "guilty until
proven innocent" isn't, therefore, clear. It doesn't in any way
invalidate Tim's argument. If, as you say, we ought to go by historical
precedent, then surely we should believe that the earth is flat as well?
And that  doesn't exist?

What's important here is not any historical precedence, but a basic
philosophical principle called "Occam's Razor" (or, the Principle of
Parsimony), which says, in essence, that something should be believed
only if there's good, solid evidence for it. That, of course, requires
the claimant to prove any claim he makes.

Saumya Debray
SUNY at Stony Brook
... philabs!sbcs!debray