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 thatdoesn'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