barryjones

  • **
  • 382 Posts
    • View Profile
If it is true that the jury convicted an innocent person, that jury was obviously "incorrect", but would you also insist that the jury must necessarily have been "unreasonable" too?  Were you always inexcusably stupid every time you adopted some theory that later turned out to be false?

Is accuracy a necessary component of reasonableness?

If not, doesn't that create the possibility that a skeptical theory of the bible might be both false and reasonable at the same time?

How much intellectual or moral obligation would there be upon a skeptic to bother with your rebuttals to him, if you refuse to say that his own theory is unreasonable?

Isn't it true that in this imperfect world where absolute proof doesn't exist, even Christians stop worrying about the possibility of being 'wrong' when they get to the point of thinking their theory of the bible is at least "reasonable"? 

Why shouldn't that luxury be extended to skeptics?
« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 07:54:10 pm by barryjones »

1

OrthodoxJew

  • **
  • 388 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does "reasonableness" give skeptics an edge in apologetics debates?
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2020, 09:59:49 am »
If it is true that the jury convicted an innocent person, that jury was obviously "incorrect", but would you also insist that the jury must necessarily have been "unreasonable" too?  Were you always inexcusably stupid every time you adopted some theory that later turned out to be false?

Is accuracy a necessary component of reasonableness?

If not, doesn't that create the possibility that a skeptical theory of the bible might be both false and reasonable at the same time?

How much intellectual or moral obligation would there be upon a skeptic to bother with your rebuttals to him, if you refuse to say that his own theory is unreasonable?

Isn't it true that in this imperfect world where absolute proof doesn't exist, even Christians stop worrying about the possibility of being 'wrong' when they get to the point of thinking their theory of the bible is at least "reasonable"? 

Why shouldn't that luxury be extended to skeptics?
"Reasonableness" is always reasonable regardless of the position it is defending. The devil is in the details, however. Much skepticism I encounter isn't reasonable at all. You'd need to give a concrete example.
שמע ישראל ה אלוקינו ה אחד
"Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one."

2

Fred

  • ****
  • 5612 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does "reasonableness" give skeptics an edge in apologetics debates?
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2020, 10:08:31 am »

Is accuracy a necessary component of reasonableness?
"Accuracy" is a little ambigous.  One needs an accurate understanding of the evidence and arguments.  I think what you're going for is whether or not the judgment has actually arrived at the truth.  Under that interpretation, the answer is NO - that is not an appropriate standard to use in assessing whether or not a judgment is reasonable.

That said, when a judgment is made that we later learn to be false, there may very well be some lessons to be learned about the judgment process that could be improved upon. 

Fred

3

barryjones

  • **
  • 382 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does "reasonableness" give skeptics an edge in apologetics debates?
« Reply #3 on: October 23, 2020, 05:39:15 pm »
If it is true that the jury convicted an innocent person, that jury was obviously "incorrect", but would you also insist that the jury must necessarily have been "unreasonable" too?  Were you always inexcusably stupid every time you adopted some theory that later turned out to be false?

Is accuracy a necessary component of reasonableness?

If not, doesn't that create the possibility that a skeptical theory of the bible might be both false and reasonable at the same time?

How much intellectual or moral obligation would there be upon a skeptic to bother with your rebuttals to him, if you refuse to say that his own theory is unreasonable?

Isn't it true that in this imperfect world where absolute proof doesn't exist, even Christians stop worrying about the possibility of being 'wrong' when they get to the point of thinking their theory of the bible is at least "reasonable"? 

Why shouldn't that luxury be extended to skeptics?
"Reasonableness" is always reasonable regardless of the position it is defending. The devil is in the details, however. Much skepticism I encounter isn't reasonable at all. You'd need to give a concrete example.

Ok, I'm an atheist, and I adopt two views that represent the view accepted by the vast majority of Christian scholars:

1 - Mark was the earliest gospel among the 4 to be published.
2 - Authentic Markan text ends at 16:8.

If those views can be reasonable to hold, how could it be unreasonable to hold that there is nothing in the earliest published gospel saying anybody ever actually saw the risen Christ?

If that can be reasonable, how could it be unreasonable to say the more detailed resurrection accounts in the later gospels are mere embellishments?

4

lucious

  • ***
  • 4643 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Does "reasonableness" give skeptics an edge in apologetics debates?
« Reply #4 on: October 25, 2020, 11:57:54 pm »
No, I consider fallibilism to be a cornerstone of a robust epistemology.