Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Straightforward, hard-to-answer-questions about the Bible/Christianity
Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 286 of 477 (559187)
05-07-2010 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 279 by Huntard
05-07-2010 10:14 AM


Huntard,
Here's what we can do. I'll start a new thread on the evidences of christianity. The thread might get lengthy but I'll go through McDowell's book and do as you requested. I'll pick some of the stronger pieces of evidence (some are certainly stronger then others) and you or DA or whoever wants can refute and we'll go back and forth. I just hope I get some help from my side on this as I'm sure I'll be bombarded from every angle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Huntard, posted 05-07-2010 10:14 AM Huntard has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 292 by Huntard, posted 05-07-2010 10:58 AM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 294 by hooah212002, posted 05-07-2010 12:24 PM Flyer75 has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 287 of 477 (559188)
05-07-2010 10:41 AM
Reply to: Message 277 by Dr Adequate
05-07-2010 8:54 AM


Re: Hypothesis, Prediction, Observations
Dr Adequate writes:
There's no reason a priori why we can't observe the effects of the supernatural.
I am inclined to disagree with that.
It is not as if the world were divided into two fixed realms, the natural and the supernatural, and that thus far we only have evidence of the natural. Rather, it that whenever there is evidence, we call that natural, and we relegate the term "supernatural" for that for which there is no evidence.
Dr Adequate writes:
We can perfectly well imagine a god who constantly sent squads of angels to Earth to go about singing his praises and smiting wrongdoers. We'd notice.
Yes, we would indeed notice. And we would call that a natural phenomenon. So we would not consider it to be evidence of the supernatural.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 277 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 8:54 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 302 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 9:27 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 288 of 477 (559189)
05-07-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 284 by Dr Adequate
05-07-2010 10:34 AM


Yes, you do, but that admissible evidence could be as simple as a "witness" that you get to testify that is either confused in what they saw or is completely lying to begin with.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 284 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 10:34 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 303 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-07-2010 9:28 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 289 of 477 (559190)
05-07-2010 10:44 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 9:59 AM


Flyer75 writes:
I'm reading "Evidence for Christianity" right now and McDowell makes a compelling case. It's more then enough evidence to hold up in a court of law.
When Christians sit down with Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists to make their case they find that other religions make equally compelling cases, with the emphasis on "equally compelling." As compelling as stories of miracles and resurrections can be, the underlying evidence that they ever really happened is less than compelling, usually absent.
Evidence that meets the legal standards of proof for the veracity of the accounts in the Bible would have carried the day for Christians in court rooms in Dayton and Little Rock and Dover, yet they didn't even make the attempt.
I can't believe McDowell still has a following. When I first got into the creation/evolution debate 30 years ago McDowell was very popular, and the two volumes of his book Evidence that Demands a Verdict (copyright 1972) still sit on my bookshelves as a legacy of that era. But I don't see him cited much anymore. There's no law that says that just because someone uses the word "evidence" in the title of their book that they actually have to have any.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 9:59 AM Flyer75 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2010 5:06 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 290 of 477 (559191)
05-07-2010 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:31 AM


quote:
Yes PaulK, his evidence would stand up...why? Because in a court of law you don't have to have a piece of "gotcha" evidence or the smoking gun (although it helps if you do). I testify in court every week and the evidence used to indict somebody or to find somebody guilty rarely has a smoking gun piece of evidence. The "case" is built upon mounds of evidence. I've seen suspects found guilty when the prosecution could never produce the BODY!!
No, it would not. You don't have witnesses you can cross-examine. The nearest to forensic evidence you have is archaeology and there are a lot of problems there (you can forget about Exodus being reliable fir a start). You'll have problems with the provenance of the bible, too. McDowell won't tell you about that. And that's why I'd say that you've been deceived.
Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:31 AM Flyer75 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 291 of 477 (559193)
05-07-2010 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 278 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 9:59 AM


On Mcdowell
This is about his video series The Authenticity of the Bible. To which I've linked the first part.
1st question he asks:
Is what we have written down today, what was written down 2000 years ago?
Answer:
We don't know. None of the manuscripts survived from that time period, and we can date them back reliably to no earlier then 70 AD for the earliest. Anyway, this question is largely irrelevant. And indeed a bunch of irrelevant comparisons follow. His most important observation follows near the end of this segment (near the end of part three). He says: "Now this doesn't mean that it is true" and he couldn't be more right. Making this whole segment rather pointless.
His second, and most important and really only relevant question:
Is what was written down true?
Answer:
I will take this in the order in which he brings it up.
Allright! On with the actual evidence, I'm escited about what he will bring up.
His first evidence isn't evidence, but an argument. The argument is that the writers wrote as if they were eye wtinesses.My response to this is: "So what?" What does that matter, unless they were actual eyewitnesses, and unless they can corroborate their stories, why should this matter in the first place? He says He believes Matthew Mark and John were eyewitness accounts. Ok, all nice and dandy, but where's the proof they were? He continues in this vein quite some time, without offering any evidence that what he is asserting is true.
We're now into the 4th part, and he bring sup the second evidence. What he cites is again not really evidence but another argument. He claims the evidence is "sufficient". He mentions a verse by John in the bible that says that not all things Jesus did have been recorded. Ok, fine. Don;t care. Why not? Because you ahve to give evidence for that which was recorded. Brings up eyewitnesses again. Why i don't know.
Quotes from the book of acts. That Christ appeared to the apostles with many convincing proofs. Ok, great, care to show me any of those? He again starts talking about eyewitnesses, Look, that's all nice and dandy, Mr. Mcdowell, but please, do you have any evidence that these are actual eyewitness accounts?
The third evidence is again not evidence. He says that the hostile witnesses agreed with what the apostles said about Jesus. I would like to know where he found this report by the hostile witnesses, because I have never seen any. So, again, no evidence is offered. He quotes from the bible, why I don;t know, becuase I'd find it very weird for there to be any reports by hostile witnesses to be in there, and then says that this proves there were hostile witnesses that agreed with the bible. I'm sorry Mr. Mcdowell, but that's not how it works. He treats the bible as if it is already true! That's not how you determine if the thing you are trying to prove is actually true! Seriously. Any independent sources that confirm this? Thought not.
I'll leave it at that for now. Tell me Flyer, ae any of these things, things he brings up in his book, Because I sure as hell don;t see where you can claim any evidence has been shown if his book is of the same quality as these videos.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 9:59 AM Flyer75 has not replied

Huntard
Member (Idle past 2294 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 292 of 477 (559194)
05-07-2010 10:58 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:40 AM


Thank you
Flyer75 writes:
Huntard,
Here's what we can do. I'll start a new thread on the evidences of christianity. The thread might get lengthy but I'll go through McDowell's book and do as you requested. I'll pick some of the stronger pieces of evidence (some are certainly stronger then others) and you or DA or whoever wants can refute and we'll go back and forth. I just hope I get some help from my side on this as I'm sure I'll be bombarded from every angle.
Thank you Flyer, I'd appreciate that. I'll be sure to participate in that thread. I'll try to help you out as much as possible by detailing clearly any faults I see with the arguments, so that you can do some more studies on it, perhaps for better answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:40 AM Flyer75 has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 293 of 477 (559203)
05-07-2010 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:35 AM


So, since Harry is a real name, we can conclude from that all of the events in Harry Potter actually happened? What an astounding basis for evidence you have. And you are a cop??????
If I tell you that there are rocks on the ocean floor, and you find them, you will then believe me that there are also humans that live down there that breathe in dirt and poop gold? I mean, I already proved that there are rocks down there, right?

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:35 AM Flyer75 has not replied

hooah212002
Member (Idle past 801 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 294 of 477 (559204)
05-07-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:40 AM


There is already a thread started, Evidence for the Biblical Record, I personally have invited you thrice since you have now made about 5 claims of "proof" and "evidence" for the bible. You keep making unsubstantiated claims. Your true creationist colors are showing.

"The Bible was written to show us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go" -Galileao

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:40 AM Flyer75 has not replied

slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 295 of 477 (559213)
05-07-2010 3:57 PM


Hi Everybody,
I see that my thread has derailed quite a bit. But do not worry! It doesn't really matter. Afterall my apologetics course wasn't really what I imagined it to be, so the questions proposed to me haven't had the chance to get asked. Although it was very interactive, so do not worry I had plenty of occasions to correct glaring misconceptions of evolution, atheism, etc. (playing devil's advocate)
But of course. This thread isn't about that anymore. I see many new subjects could be opened. Dr.Sing would probably fare better by starting a new thread and expose in a concise way what he (she?) is trying to convey.
Same for Flyer75 who has already said he would start a thread and present some of Mcdowell's best arguments.
So if these get to be started, I see this thread dying off quietly.
Thanks everyone once again

Replies to this message:
 Message 312 by Stile, posted 05-09-2010 7:21 PM slevesque has replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 296 of 477 (559217)
05-07-2010 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 10:31 AM


Yes PaulK, his evidence would stand up...why? Because in a court of law you don't have to have a piece of "gotcha" evidence or the smoking gun (although it helps if you do). I testify in court every week and the evidence used to indict somebody or to find somebody guilty rarely has a smoking gun piece of evidence. The "case" is built upon mounds of evidence. I've seen suspects found guilty when the prosecution could never produce the BODY!!
Then in Message 285:
And you're shaking your head about the origin of life question....prove it to me then. Can you? With evolution...prove it. You cannot. You will do exactly as I am doing. You will use scientific explanations that we DO KNOW for sure about certain things and extrapolate them to the past and say, "it's logical that this started somehow" but you can't prove it directly.
Back in 1982 was when I first encountered Phillip Johnson when he was one of the people offering his opinion on an episode of Nova. As you may recall, he is a lawyer and he had just written his Darwin on Trial in which he criticized evolution for not meeting courtroom rules of evidence. My reaction was, "What an idiot! Science is a police investigation, not a courtroom procedure!" IOW, he was trying to hold scientific evidence to a standard that clearly did not apply. Science isn't presenting a final case in order to have a decision rendered, but rather it is conducting an on-going investigation, searching for clues, following leads or even hunches, forming and testing and eliminating hypotheses, trying to figure out how to account for and explain what's happening (AKA "theory building").
OTOH, the Christian approach that we see presented is not in the least bit like an investigation to solve a mystery. No, they believe that they have the solution to that mystery and they want a decision to be rendered, immediately. Indeed, the urgent demand for their mark, the target of any proselytizing effort, to make an immediate decision right then and there is a hallmark of their proselytizing technique. As a contrast, compare science education with its explicit goal of not compelling belief, but rather only requiring that the students understand the material, with "creation science" "balanced-treatment" materials compelling belief with their repeated demands that the student make a decision right then and there between their thinly-veiled "generic" Creator and "atheistic evolution" (BTW, the smarter elementary-grade students in such classes end up choosing atheism; Livermore, 1981).
So Christian apologists take the courtroom approach, but is their evidence admissible? To be sure, court trials are mainly the two sides trying to persuade the jury to choose in their favor, which means that it is the more persuasive lawyer who will prevail, not necessarily the truth nor justice -- an imperfect system, but arguable one of the best we can come up with. However, we do try to help the truth along by having standards for the admissibility of the evidence. True, the evidence does not need to be in the form of "smoking gun" physical evidence and testimony does play a major role. But there are still standards for evidence and for testimony. One form of evidence that most certainly is not admissible is "hearsay evidence". Even if you try to testify as to what was said in a telephone conversation, that testimony will be challenged and ruled as hearsay and hence inadmissible. Similarly, if you try to present the written testimony of an anonymous "eyewitness" as evidence, would that be admissible?
Rules of evidence cut both ways. If Christians want their religion to effectively be put on trial (McDowell obviously does, calling it "evidence that demands a verdict"), then rules of evidence must also apply to what they present. Anonymous eyewitnesses? Hearsay evidence? Will that "evidence" really stand up in court? Think long and hard about that, because it should be part of discussion of such evidence.
BTW, Thomas Paine rightfully pointed out something about Revelation. Revelation can be Revelation only to the individuals to whom it was Revealed. But the moment they relate that Revelation to another person, it becomes hearsay. And when that second person relates it to a third, it becomes hearsay upon hearsay. And after two millennia, we end up with hearsay upon hearsay hundreds and thousands of times over. In case you need some perspective, think back to that childhood group game of "Telephone", where you're all in a row and the first person is given a message to whisper to the next, who passes it on, and on, and on until the message gets to the last person; then the last person tells the group the message and then the first person does and everybody can see how much it had changed in the repeated retransmissions. Food for thought.
I started studying "creation science" around 1980 and started discussing it on-line on CompuServe in the late 80's. Even though I had a lot of personal experience with fundamentalism through the "Jesus Freak" movement of circa 1970 (that movement, at least in the Real OC, Calif, marked the start of the explosive growth of Christian fundamentalism), I was repeatedly perplexed by the inexplicable reactions of creationists to the plain truth and by their continued use of utterly false claims that had already been revealed to them as utterly false multiple times (I remember one in particular whose false claim I had so decisively demolished that he just dropped the entire subject, then a few months later I saw him presenting the exact same false claim to a newcomer, so I challenged him and he immediately disappeared again ... and undoubtedly repeated the same offense elsewhere, even though he knew he was deliberately lying, which is a very definite issue I have with Christians).
One day in a Yahoo group forum, I was given an epiphany. A resident creationist had repeated a very lame creationist claim which I soundly refuted and to which I ended by pointing out how lame that claim is and, if they really believe that they have so much irrefutable evidence for creation, then why do they only present such lame claims and arguments that couldn't convince anybody. His reply was that I did not find it convincing because I was not already convinced. Whoa! That revealed to me:

  1. Creationists' concern is not with the truth, but rather with convincing people: convincing others in order to convert them (Christians take creationism classes in order to get "ammo" to use in their street proselytizing; unbeknownst to them, they're being handed blanks) as well as convincing themselves that their beliefs are verified by the evidence (sound familiar?).
  2. It doesn't matter how weak or lame any claim is, if it seems to agree with their beliefs, then they will embrace it eagerly.
  3. Creationists who find those claims so convincing cannot understand why non-creationists do not also find those same lame claims equally convincing. So they then assume that we're "fighting God", etc with equally lame "explanations" that completely miss the mark.
I read McDowell a few decades ago. Like most other such attempts, totally unconvincing. So you must find him convincing because you are already convinced.
Think again and think critically: would his evidence really pass muster?
Finally, there's an interesting event early in my military career (late 1970's) one Sunday or Saturday morning when I was biding my time with a book in the base rec center until a detail I had been assigned to. TV had nothing on; there was some lame "sports" show on in which teams were doing lame stuff like tossing frisbees between seats on an amusement park ride. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, DUMB! Then an "older guy" (still young by current standards) asked if he could change the channel. Oh welcome relief! Until it turned out that he had turned to something even dumber. A televangelist. Now, this is an absolutely true story -- the Army parlance is "I ain't shittin' ye, but ... ":
The televangelist presented a scenario to each individual in the audience. They are a member of a conference consisting of a member of each religion on Earth (for some odd reason, no Catholics or mainstream Christians: the only Christian at the conference is a fundamentalist). Each member of the conference presents the sacred document of his faith. What is your ace in the hole? Your sacred document, the Bible, is The Word of God!
Now mind you, I had been away from fundamentalism for a few years. In the early 70's, we were getting proselytized at so aggressively all the time that we normals just got absolutely sick and tired of it. But when I heard that ludicrously idiotic punchline, my jaw literally dropped in shock that anyone would have actually said something so utterly stupid. Just before burst out loud in laughter, I looked around in the room. Most of the people there had just tuned the entire nonsense out completely and were oblivious. The guy who had turned it on was sitting there in rapt agreement with every word spoken. The TV audience also loved it.
Looking back on it, I realize that it was a case of an incredibly lame argument appearing to be absolutely convincing because the audience was already convinced. The task for you now, is to realize that to those who are not already convinced, such lame claims serve much more convincingly as indictments against Christianity and against any notion that any Christians have at least two neurons to rub together.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 10:31 AM Flyer75 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 4:50 PM dwise1 has replied

Flyer75
Member (Idle past 2422 days)
Posts: 242
From: Dayton, OH
Joined: 02-15-2010


Message 297 of 477 (559218)
05-07-2010 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by dwise1
05-07-2010 4:39 PM


DW1,
Thanks for a well thought out response.
Again, McDowell doesn't present his evidence (in the first few chapters of any of his books) as being spiritual or supernatural evidence, but historical evidence only that stands up to history.
For example, the book of Jeremiah. the Lachish Letters, complete verify the events of the battles in that book. Now, that's one tiny example but McDowell lays out evidence after evidence that even secular historians have verified and he quotes them. Now, if all these evidences exists for the historicity of the events of the Bible, then one can logically and with some reason, along with faith, believe the rest of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2010 4:39 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by PaulK, posted 05-07-2010 5:10 PM Flyer75 has not replied
 Message 300 by dwise1, posted 05-07-2010 5:45 PM Flyer75 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 298 of 477 (559220)
05-07-2010 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 289 by Percy
05-07-2010 10:44 AM


When Christians sit down with Moslems, Hindus and Buddhists to make their case they find that other religions make equally compelling cases, with the emphasis on "equally compelling."
The Seder, the family meal at Pesach (AKA "Passover"), is a family dinner ritual which uses a Haggadah {*}, a kind of a script, in which each family member is given a role to play. At one point, one of the children is to ask the question which leads into the father telling the story of the Exodus: "Why is this evening so different from all the rest?"
Similarly, we need to ask "why is this one particular religion supposed to be so different from all the rest?" Nor is it an impertinent question asked by atheists, since we repeatedly hear Christians claim that their religion is unique and completely different from all the rest. When they present such claims, then they must be able to present admissible evidence to support their claims.
I also read McDowell and found him unconvincing. Though I was pleasantly surprised one day to see a book by him denouncing and warning against Dominion Theology, the idea of replacing the Constitution of the United States of America with an Old Testament theocracy, a movement that directly inspired the Radical Religious Right of the 1980's. Well, at least he had gotten one thing right.
OBTW, did you know that McDowell's section on evolution was ghost-written by member Glenn R. Morton? While he was still a YEC, of course.
{FOOTNOTE * :
In my Rabbinic Literature class, Rabbi Kalir taught us of two different styles of teaching (not necessarily the standard transliterations):

  1. Khalakhah -- a scholorly analysis of the text or idea in question.
  2. Haggadah -- presenting the teaching in the form of a story

He also gave us some insight into joke-telling at that point. You have the punchline. There are all kinds of ways to lead up to that punchline, but the same punchline is always there.
The term "Haggadah" has in the meantime been adopted by the general Jewish population to only refer to the Seder script.
}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by Percy, posted 05-07-2010 10:44 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 299 of 477 (559221)
05-07-2010 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 4:50 PM


Essentially you are arguing that if parts of the Bible are reliable, all of it must be. But that isn't true. The Bible is a collection of documents of varying degrees of accuracy. Even an individual document may get some parts right and others wrong. And the Bible does get some things wrong. How does getting some things right and others wrong entitle us to trust it in matters we cannot check ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 4:50 PM Flyer75 has not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5930
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 300 of 477 (559223)
05-07-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 297 by Flyer75
05-07-2010 4:50 PM


As others have already pointed out:
Did you ever read the novel, Shogun? Before I read it, I took a university class in the history of Japan. In the mid 1500's, the "Barbarians from the South", the Portuguese, arrived in Japan. Because the Japanese were not on speaking terms with the Chinese, even though both sides sorely needed/wanted trade with each other, those Barbarians became the middlemen of that trade. During the late 1500's, a private, Nobunaga, had risen up through the ranks to unify Japan and lead her in a war of conquest against Korea, but his lowly origin prevented him for assuming the title of "Generalissimo Who Quelled the Barbarians", Shogun. When he died in 1582, he left Japan to be ruled by his four generals as regents. In 1600, fighting among his regents led to the victory of one, Tokugawa Ieyasu, whose Tokugawa Shogunate ruled from 1600 to the mid-1860's when Admiral Perry opened Japan to the West. A decisive factor in the final battle against his arch-rival, Hideyoshi, as we were taught in class, were about 300 musketeers (samurai armed with muskets, a decidedly Western weapon).
Also in 1600 was the arrival of a Dutch ship to the shores of Japan, along with its English pilot, one William Adams. Adams quickly became a confidant and advisor to Tokugawa Ieyasu and, under the Shogunate became samurai and Tokugawa's trade advisor. It is openly known that Adams, Anjin-sama, was the inspiration for Clavell's character Blackthorne. And that Clavell directly connected him with the training of the musketeers, though I cannot find references connecting Adams to the same.
OK, Clavell's novel was based on actual history and parallels much of that history fairly well. Does that make everything that Clavell had written true?
Imagine any fictional novel which embroils its characters in the midst historical events and even uses actual historical characters. Furthermore, that author maintains the standard of utmost historical accuracy. Does that automatically mean that that author's fictional characters actually existed and did and said exactly what the author has written?
Each piece of evidence needs to stand on its own. No evidence gets to ride on the coattails of other historical references. True, the more individual parts of a narrative that can be corraborated will led more credibility to other parts, but that alone is not proof for those other parts.
Of course, because you are already convinced, you find those "evidences" convincing. But since you are discoursing with those who are not yet convinced, you must set more stringent standards.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Flyer75, posted 05-07-2010 4:50 PM Flyer75 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024