Ah, Some New

What Henke Responded - up to "Henke2022aa" (with ab and ai looked up in advance, since referred to in previous) · Ah, Some New · Back to Philosophy · Beginning on Henke2022az? Nope. · Why Catalogue the Supernatural? Why Catalogue Fiction? · Henke(2022bi) Starts It Today! But I only get to Henke(2022bk) For Now. · New Batch of Henke Essays · Resuming at Henke(2022bL) after Interruption, up to 2022br. · Why Did I Bring Up Greek Myth? · Historicity of Certain Religious Stories, Notably Genesis

Henke 2022ab
Lundahl (2022i) Does not Understand the Fallacy of Circular Reasoning and, Yes, the Wizard of Oz is Fiction
https://sites.google.com/site/respondingtocreationism/henke-2022ab

Me

“First known audience of The Wizard of Oz took it as fiction.”

Henke

Yes, of course, The Wizard of Oz is a work of fiction! That’s the whole point of the example! Because the story is fiction, it so well illustrates the folly of circular reasoning and Mr. Lundahl completely misses the point with his flippant reply. Because the yellow brick road, Dorothy and the Emerald City don’t exist, the circular reasoning fallacy involving the situations in The Wizard of Oz becomes very obvious. Mr. Lundahl doesn’t need to remind us of that. Mr. Lundahl needs to study Copi and Cohen (1994) or a similar introductory textbook on logic and logical fallacies because he’s oblivious to the Wizard of Oz example and he obviously doesn’t know how faulty and unreliable his circular reasoning is.

The problem is, I already did that. Teach Yourself Formal Logic or Introduction to Formal Logic. It is not a circulus in demonstrando or a circulus in explicando to assume historicity to examine possibility in explanation, and given possibility, use other evidence than this possibility to establish historicty in the demonstration part.

AND by my sentence, I gave a new reason to take Gospels as not fiction, independent of what possibilities are given.

It is not just that The Wizard of Oz is in fact fiction. It is that its earliest known audience (or those within it sufficiently adult and pretty soon most children too) took it as fiction. No one is reported to have taken it is history.

Henke has this to say:

1. I NEVER said that miracles were impossible (also see Henke 2022ae). I’ll gladly accept the existence of miracles if Mr. Lundahl or others give me the required evidence. Nothing ranks a zero on my probability curve for past events in Henke (2022b).

2. I NEVER tried to “prove” anything (Henke 2022ad). Proof is for mathematics. History and science deal with evidence and probability. As I further discuss in Henke (2022ab), Mr. Lundahl frequently and improperly talks about having “proof” and “proving” issues.

Henke (2022ac): “No Circular ‘Proofs’ from Me: Mr. Lundahl Isn’t Comprehending My Essays at All”

The most reasonable proof for ANY historic fact is to demonstrate:

• it's reported in a text that is historic rather than fictional
• and it is NOT reported for some obvious fraud
• and also not for some obvious misunderstanding on part of someone.

These three are, taken together, a good prima facie case for any given historic fact. To counter it, you'd have to demonstrate:

• it's a work of fiction
• or the historic document is lying about something
• or the author had a perspective that made him misunderstand something.

This is the same irrespectively of what probability an event has prior to being reported. Except when the probability is zero.

So, if Henke is wasting time on saying "belief in historicity doesn't make a text historical" he is misunderstanding my point. Historicity of text was never a total guarantee of total factuality of its content. But if he goes on to make no claims on "the historian was lying, and this is how he came to be believed" or "the historian misunderstood such and such, and this is how it really happened" - it becomes obvious, that he is not making any investigation or tolerating one on my part, into the historicity of the event at all. He is indeed using the "breaking of laws of nature" as a kind of crow bar, to rule out, not just factuality of content, but even historicity of text, in one go. So, if he is not conscious of trying to "prove" anything, I am very conscious of the way his proofs actually are going.

Henke (2022ad): “Why Can’t Mr. Lundahl Comprehend My Essays? Lundahl (2022e), (2022f), (2022i), (2022j), (2022k), (2022L) and (2022m) Keep Mistakenly Discussing “Proof” and “Proving” When I Only Asked Him to Provide Demonstrable Evidence” - Henke (2022ae): “Contrary to the Misrepresentations in Lundahl (2022i; 2022L), I Don’t Say that Miracles or Other Supernatural Events are Impossible” - Henke (2022af): “God’s Actions Need Not Always be Miraculous” - Henke (2022af): “God’s Actions Need Not Always be Miraculous” - Henke (2022ag): “Mr. Lundahl Made a Big Mistake in Even Mentioning David Copperfield in Lundahl (2022a) and He Ignored the Numerous Times I Said that Mr. Lundahl was Only Making a Suggestion that Demons Help David Copperfield Do His Magic Tricks” - Henke (2022ah): “Angels at Jesus’ Feet: Lundahl (2022i) is Open to that Possibility” - Henke (2002ai): “Lundahl (2022i) Misinterprets and Improperly Limits the Effects of Gravity”

Henke (2022aj): “Contrary to Lundahl (2022i), Philosophy Shouldn’t be Separated from Historical or Scientific Evidence”

Let’s say on Tuesday, you make the following observation:

Observation #1: Lions are animals.

On Saturday, you make a second observation:

Observation #2: Some animals are dogs.

Anyone with a superficial knowledge of biology knows that both of these statements by themselves are true. However, the statements may be improperly combined to produce an illogical conclusion:

Some animals are dogs,
Lions are animals,
Therefore, lions are dogs.

The improper combination is technically known as an invalid syllogism. The middle term cannot be twice undistributed in a valid one. Now a term can be distributed in two ways : by being subject in a sentence with "all" or "no" or by being predicate in one with "no" or "not all" for the subject. In the major, it is undistributed because it is in a proposition with "some" and not one with "all" and in the minor, it is undistributed as predicate of a proposition that is affirmative and not negative.

Philosophy and history cannot and should not be separated into two different debates as Lundahl (2022i) mistakenly believes. They must be part of the same debate.

Not the least, see previous.

Or at least, the parts should be sufficiently distinct.

He doesn’t have the good scientific or historical evidence to support his claims.

For the talking snake, or Christ walking on the water, the evidence is historic.

Mr. Lundahl’s “first known audience rule” is a dogmatic and worthless proclamation based on demonstrably false assumptions.

Ah, we are getting somewhere.

People lie all the time and there is often a large “first known audience” that gullibly believes the lies.

This involves giving a good case why the audience would believe the lie. It's about something very vague? Like personal culpability - cultural culpabilty - "genetic cumpability" ... or only perceived culpability of some other group. Fine. But about precise statements of individual facts, no, not if checking is possible.

If no Exodus happened in 1510 BC, it was easy for any audience of the book to check in 1500 BC or maybe later up to 1470 they had no memories of walking through the Red Sea on dry sea bottom. If no Exodus happened in 1510 BC and the book was from after 1470 BC, it was easy to check no one recalled having heard of such a walk through the Red Sea before the book was produced.

As I’ve stated before, the archeological results in Finkelstein and Silberman (2001) demonstrate that the ancient Israelite “first known audience” was wrong about the events in the Old Testament book of Exodus.

Archaeology by itself doesn't tell a story, and therefore only indirectly refutes or remotely confirms a story. Finkelstein and Silberman demonstrate no such thing, neither on the case of Exodus nor on the principle, because it is fairly easy to debunk their work from 2001 in categories like:

• misinterpreting Biblical chronology
• misinterpreting carbon dates prior to Trojan War
• misinterpreting the relation between what is seen and what is told as a contradiction, where there is no such thing.

So, first known audience of The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts certainly took it as a work of non-fiction in the mainly historical genre, and in that sense it is history, but the problem is, it is history where grave misunderstandings from people who weren't there cannot even remotely be discounted.

Here are a few items which belong more properly to previous part, What Henke Responded - up to "Henke2022aa" (with ab and ai looked up in advance, since referred to in previous), so if you want to skip them for the following, I make a square around them:

Although our “acts of imagination” can be very useful in proposing hypotheses for evaluation, they must never be separated from our reason. Not everything that we can imagine turns out to be real. That is, the products of our imagination must always be immediately tested with reason. To be exact, all of us should have a rational mindset as a starting point and immediately apply reason when we are first introduced to any “act of imagination.” The imagination of a Christian explaining a miracle is not separated from the reason of a Christian believing a miracle. He’s a smart human being that is capable of separating fact from fantasy and evidence from myth. I can separate fact from lie, fantasy from observation or unimagined abstraction or uncomprehended utterance, evidence from bare claims and ... "myth" sense a) from "myth" sense b) from "myth" sense c) etc. The problem is, Henke is trying to make things opposites when they don't belong into the same category. Henke is certainly guilty of a "quod licet Iovi non licet bovi" when he gives the important scientist and himself the right to imagine unobserved forces of graviation, and denies the relatively unimportant Christian the right to imagine unobserved acts of God's will behind the observed effect of God's will historically known as a miracle. In the one case, he doesn't and in the other case he does, and in the quoted sentence repeat offends in pretending "imagination" being a proof of "non-factuality" of a description. He is also equating the general reader, with a specific type having his own culture, one that neither knows in advance nor cares to look up what this phrase means in Classical culture. Henke 2022aL : Mr. Lundahl is a Geocentricist Apart from repeating a mistake dealt with in previous part What Henke Responded - up to "Henke2022aa" (with ab and ai looked up in advance, since referred to in previous), he refers to the site of David Palm, whom I already knew since refuting him. The following ones are also about the previous discussion : Henke (2022am): “Ex Nihilo (Something Out of Nothing) Creation Violates Natural Law No Matter Who Does It” - Henke (2022an): “Nuclear Explosions Don’t Violate Natural Law, but Again Ex Nihilo Creation of Bread in this Universe Does” So is Henke 2022ap Lundahl (2022j) and His Source C.S. Lewis (1960) are Not Experts on Neurology and Consciousness. Mr. Lundahl Needs to Admit It and Get Better and Up-to-Date Sources on Consciousness. Henke makes the mistake of taking an expert on neurology as expert on consciousness in the aspects relevant for the discussion.

Now, back on track some.

Henke 2022ar Lundahl (2022j): C.S. Lewis’ Miracles Doesn’t Demonstrate the Reality of Miracles

First of all, the book actually does. We have mainly been discussing chapter 3. And some of the chapter (8, I think) of the Pool Table Analogy. But there is in fact a series of chapters that starts with a broad claim of what the Incarnation is, and goes on to analyse : 1) how the miracles of the Gospels fit it; 2) and how they are historically well evidenced.

In counter-references to a book he has nearly obviously not read, since he doesn't see how it deals with historical claims for miracles in the Gospels, except on his own words, he has read it, he gives :

Carrier, R. 2014. On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, Sheffield Phoenix Press: Sheffield, UK, 696pp.
Loftus, J.W. (ed.). 2010. The Christian Delusion: Why Faith Fails, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 422pp.
Loftus, J.W. (ed.). 2011. The End of Christianity, Prometheus Books: Amherst, NY, USA, 435pp.
Price, R.M. 2007. Jesus is Dead, American Atheist Press: Cranford, NJ, USA, 279pp.

I have actually dealt with two of these three. Lets start with Carrier:

1) somewhere else : History vs Hume
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/history-vs-hume.html

2) Creation vs. Evolution : More on the Hume Rehash by Richard Carrier
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/01/more-on-hume-rehash-by-richard-carrier.html

3) somewhere else : Richard Carrier Claimed Critical Thinking was Rare Back Then ...
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2013/01/richard-carrier-clamed-critical.html

4) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Did St Irenaeus Know Who Saint John was and What he Wrote?
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/01/did-st-irenaeus-know-who-saint-john-was.html

Or:

Creation vs. Evolution : Richard Carrier Refutes Certain Evolutionists · somewhere else : Carrier on Tacitus

Or (more on theistic philosophy) here:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : With Richard Carrier · Carrier carries on the obtusity on a key point ... · somewhere else : Two Observations, Carrier! What if logically necessary means God? · Various Responses to Carrier · A Fault in Carrier's Logic Perception

And now Loftus, also on theistic philosophy : 1) Kalam, Loftus & Lindsay · 2) Two rebuttals of Kalaam rebutted

Henke (2022as): “I Certainly Read Lewis (1960) Before Commenting on It in Henke (2022b). Meanwhile, Lundahl (2022j) Shows Great Impatience in Wanting to Discuss the Resurrection of Jesus Christ before Providing Good Evidence for Genesis 3”

Contrary to the speculations in Lundahl (2022j), I first read Miracles (Lewis 1960) many years ago when I was still a Christian.

OK ... sorry. But how long ago?

My copy of Lewis (1960) was destroyed when our family library was largely flooded in 1997.

And he claims to have reread it ...

Nevertheless, I had not planned on dealing with the supposed Resurrection of Jesus Christ until Mr. Lundahl provided acceptable evidence for the Talking Snake of Genesis 3.

A prior historic text is usually proven to have been taken as historic by a subsequent one. Hence the importance to go backwards in history, just as we would do within "living (or recently dead) memory" - and the objections to miracles in Genesis are philosophically also objections to those in the Gospels. I have also given (at the very latest in previous instalment) a good argument why miracles should NOT be proven (typically) in laboratory settings.

Now, Henke wants to take up an argument, and it involves a discussion he has declained.

Meanwhile, Price (2007), Carrier (2014), Loftus (2010), Loftus (2011) and other works argue that the Resurrection of Christ is a myth.

But Henke has so far declined a discussion of the Trojan War - one of the stories often claimed as "myth" - and he has also considered my "showing off" Classical myth as irrelevant to the discussion. He is contradicting himself or doing another quod licet Iovi non licet bovi : when Carrier and Loftus use the word "myth" they can do it, because they are important or it is relevant to the discussion because it supports Henke's point. When I use the word "myth" or rather deal with examples usually so labelled, I can't because I am unimportant or it is irrelevant to the discussion because I do not support Henke's or their point.

Meanwhile, Henke's chosen authorities are not an appeal to anything like impartial expertise, these guys aren't the general academia any more than John Calvin or John Knox was Desiderius Erasmus.

Henke (2022at): “Lundahl (2022a-p) Avoids Using or Checking My Peer-Review References and Prefers Less Reliable Websites and Outdated Books”

Why does he often avoid them and prefer less reliable sources, such as Wikipedia articles

I would argue, wikipedians overall are a less narrow group than any given reference with any given peer review. They are also easier to check. I would say that Henke's references are often longer works and I have so much time to dedicate to my debate with Henke, I am NOT treating him as any kind of Academic mentor, and I do not want him to imagine he can treat me as if I were or as if I ought to be doing so.

or outdated 18th to 19th century religious books, such as the opinions of 18th century Bishop Richard Challoner?

I fail to see how the opinion of Bishop Richard Challoner on how speech sounds came from donkeys (or by extension snakes) could be outdated. I also fail to see how someone like Henke, by pretending the Bible story is one of animals naturally having this ability (at least with snakes) could qualify as some kind of update on it. And I have so totally not seen in Henke's references any kind of even pretended update on Challoner's view. Theology is a field where the right solution has been given to most questions even nearly immediately 2000 years ago. This being so, a book is not likely to be outdated if from the 18th C. - unless it's by a modern sceptic. This group has changed their standpoint more than once, since they have so often been soundly refuted by updates even in secular research.

but not modern archeology?

Henke has so far not given any archaeological observation by Finkelstein or Silberman, which I could intelligently discuss, or at least look up in their rivals like Thinker's Update, he has only referred to their overall conclusion, which contradicts history and is false for that reason.

I often refer to modern archaeology in my calibration of C14. Why is 40 000 BP the carbon date for 2957 BC? Because the Neanderthal- and Denisovan-extinctions are by fossils of purebred such 40 000 BP according to archaeologists, and the most likely explanation is the Flood (which a credible, if not sole such, Biblical chronology puts at 2957 BC). Why is 9700 BC the carbon date for 350 years later, Noah's death, and 8600 BC for the birth of Peleg in 401 after the Flood? Because of Göbekli Tepe. Why are the extra years only 1565 in 1935 BC, for a carbon date 3500 BC? Because Genesis 14 when Abraham was roughly 80 (between 76 and 86!) mentioned an attack on Amorrhaean Asason-Tamar, which is En-Gedi, and because the temple treasures from En-Gedi are evacuated on reed mats carbon dated to 3500 BC. Plus equations between Djoser's and Senusret III's sarcophagus or grave ship (carbon datable wood in each case) and the times of Joseph in Egypt and Moses' birth.

All of these references to C14 would have been highly impossible for me to do without modern archaeology providing them. What you have provided for Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001 is: a) a reference, b) a gigantic conclusion going beyond any evidence I think they are likely to have.

The possibilities of libraries can be considered as exhausted if I go to Bibliothèque nationale de France, François Mitterand, make a search on Recherche simple : Finkelstein, I. and N.A. Silberman. 2001. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of its Sacred Texts: The Free Press: New York, USA, 385pp. and find Aucune réponse ne correspond à votre recherche. I tried an advanced search, posing authors and title into separate boxes too, nada. Ah, wait, it actually does say sth on replacing authors (probably "and" was a fault) with date. And that something says, it is in "Tolbiac - Rez-de-jardin - magasin" meaning you need a special reservation of some kind (not sure I could get one) to consult it.

Now, from BnF - the site where this book is - I cannot access most sites on computers, not just FB, but even blogger are out. I'd have to email the references to myself, laboriously handwritten from the consultation, and the very little I could therefore salvage from a short visit is hardly worth it.

By contrast, going to wikipedia, I have access to quite a lot of modern archaeology in a much more handy way, and can use far more of what I find. Why should I make things more convenient to my opponents than to myself?

Why does he trust ancient histories, ... but not modern archeology?

Well, because our knowledge of the past depends more on ancient histories than on modern archaeology. And if I neither consider archaeology as superior to history or modern to ancient, why shouldn't I rely more on ancient histories than on modern archaeology? It's a preference I have already explained, and to some readers, if not Henke, justified.

And I must admit I was somewhat impatient to get from a seriously warped discussion of logical fallacies and "low probability" alias (after how Henke deals with it) impossibility of miracles to actual discussion of history.

I see I have a batch of more essays on the philosophical part. That's for next time.

Hans Georg Lundahl
ut supra (vel in bloggo infra)

PS, next day this is just beyond the passage on Back to Philosophy, but belongs here:

Henke (2022az): “I Didn’t Forget about the Title of Lundahl (2022a), I Disagreed with It”

No, Mr. Lundahl, I did not forget about the title of Lundahl (2022a), which is “Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories Believed to be True.” I just reject the validity of the title and almost all of the claims in Lundahl (2022a). There’s no legitimate evidence anywhere in Lundahl (2022a) that supports the existence of the supernatural and why anyone should believe that these stories are true.

My title was not Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories that SHOULD BE Believed to be True. It was Several Types of ‘Supernatural’ Featured in Stories Believed to be True. These stories are or were in fact, whether they should so or not, believed to be true. This is not a premiss rejected, it is a premiss not even adressed by Henke's "There’s no legitimate evidence ... why anyone should believe that these stories are true."

Being obtuse may give someone the subjective impression of refuting someone, but it will not give everyone else such an impression. I thought and still think that a classification is a good preliminary to discussing the evidence./HGL