Talk:Argument from silence: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
I notice that the old claim that the Virgin Birth being an argument from silence was put in back. Sigh, people it is '''not''' an argument from silence but rather a syllogistic logic: |
I notice that the old claim that the Virgin Birth being an argument from silence was put in back. Sigh, people it is '''not''' an argument from silence but rather a syllogistic logic: |
||
:Major premise: In the first century CE it was widely believed that women were the 'soil' into which a man planted his soil (THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS Is it a fact or fable? Part 1 |
:Major premise: In the first century CE it was widely believed that women were the 'soil' into which a man planted his soil ([http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b0.htm THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS Is it a fact or fable? Part 1]) |
||
:Minor premise: In Roman 1:3 (KVJ) Paul says: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Seed here is translated from the Greek word 'sperma' from which the modern word 'sperm' comes from |
:Minor premise: In Roman 1:3 ([KVJ] http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4690&version=kjv) Paul says: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Seed here is translated from the Greek word 'sperma' from which the modern word 'sperm' comes from) |
||
:Conclusion: Paul refutes the virgin birth--by his own words. |
:Conclusion: Paul refutes the virgin birth--by his own words. |
||
Revision as of 00:47, 31 December 2007
![]() | Philosophy: Logic Unassessed Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Virgin Birth misrepresentation
I notice that the old claim that the Virgin Birth being an argument from silence was put in back. Sigh, people it is not an argument from silence but rather a syllogistic logic:
- Major premise: In the first century CE it was widely believed that women were the 'soil' into which a man planted his soil (THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS Is it a fact or fable? Part 1)
- Minor premise: In Roman 1:3 ([KVJ] http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4690&version=kjv) Paul says: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Seed here is translated from the Greek word 'sperma' from which the modern word 'sperm' comes from)
- Conclusion: Paul refutes the virgin birth--by his own words.
This logical conclusion (as well as a at least one challenges to the logical steps) can be found at Jesus Police [http://www.elca.org/questions/Results.asp?recid=36 Telling the Lutheran Story Do Lutherans believe Jesus was born of a virgin?] The Virgin Birth - Separating Myth from Fact! The Mystery of Paul's Ignorance by Louis W. Cable New Testament Contradictions (1995) by Paul Carlson In fact Paul Carlson expressly states "The apostle Paul says that Jesus "was born of the seed of David" (Romans 1:3). Here the word "seed" is literally in the Greek "sperma." This same Greek word is translated in other verses as "descendant(s)" or "offspring." The point is that the Messiah had to be a physical descendant of King David through the male line." This is not novel research people.--216.31.15.35 (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Fallacy?
If the a.f.s. is used as a proof of certain ignorance, it's fallacious. If it's used a proof of possible ignorance, it isn't. You can't dismiss it out of hand as fallacious, as I've tried to explain in the article. Jacquerie27 22:04 May 5, 2003 (UTC)
- It's an interesting article, Jacquerie27, although it might be tedious to make it complete. It would serve no purpose to use these encyclopedia articles as a place for debating what after all constitutes "silence" - that argument would never end. Nevertheless, the article asserts as a fact that St Paul is silent concerning who the father of Jesus is - or rather, concerning the event of the virginal conception. I'm sure that you recognize that this only seems reasonable if an alternative explanation is adopted for St Paul's consistent reference to Jesus as the Son of God. There are alternatives, of course: gnosticism, docetism, etc. But with "orthodox" assumptions, the virgin birth appears to be explicitly mentioned every time this title is used of Jesus. Although this does show a glaring committment to skepticism underlying the article, I don't think that the article would be improved by adding arguments from the other side. What would you recommend, instead? Mkmcconn 20:27 May 6, 2003 (UTC)
I agree that the article flirts with tedium,
- He quite didn't say that, and I'm still interested to know what objective test you're applying to decide whether an article is interesting or not. If you've got one, what score does an article have to reach on the index of interest to meet your approval? I'll fall short of it, I know, but I'd like to know whether I'm improving. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
especially when it makes the sophistic point that the argument from silence "proves" that Paul "may not have known" about the Virgin Birth. Geez -- to prove that something may have been the case doesn't sound like much of a proof!
- The whole point of the a.f.s. is that it establishes possibility, not certainty. If you've got a way of proving for certain that he knew or did not know about it, lots of scholars, famous and otherwise, would be very interested to see it. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I do however take strong issue with the claim that the argument has "famously" been used against Paul. The use of the passive voice and the word "famously" sound like the kind of rhetorical dodges that people use to excuse ignorance. Tell us which famous scholars have famously used this argument! If you do not, I will interpret your silence to mean you do not klnow, and I will delete the paragraph! Slrubenstein
- You must be a Saki fan. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
By the way, Mkmcconn, I would not at all take Paul's use of "son og God" to refer to the Virgin Birth. In the Hebrew Bible, "son of God" is used to refer to Kings of Israel (who most definitely had biological genitors), see Psalm 2:7 and 89: 26-27. The Apocryphal book Ecclesiasticus uses the phrase to refer to "just" or "righteous" men, which echoes Psalm 17. I grant that the phrase has other meanings (e.g. angelic beings); other sources use the phrase as synonymous with "Children of Israel," so it had an ethnic connotation as well as a moral connotation. My point is that it is an idiomatic phrase that was not used in a way consistent with its literal sense, and that it is pretty likely that Paul and other early Christians "may have" used it just like other people at the time. Slrubenstein
- I think that it would be safe to anticipate that as a very early Christian he might have been using the phrase as non-Christians at the time used it. However, it's hard to maintain when one considers the actual, distinctive way that Paul uses the phrase, and the peculiar significance this title has in Paul's explanation of salvation, by which we are "sons of God". But the issue would be hard to conclude, divorced from belief one way or another - that's what I mean by my warning that this article could invite an endless argument over whether Paul is in fact "silent" about who Jesus father is. Mkmcconn 22:19 May 7, 2003 (UTC)
- quicky web-refs supporting the "famous use" of this argument:
- http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b1.htm
- http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html
- http://meltingpot.fortunecity.com/finland/618/virgin.htm
- http://www.whatsaiththescripture.com/The.Holy.Bible/Reasons7.Virg.Birth.Christ.html
- All of these pages assert that the argument is in some sense "famous", or the standard fare of critics of the Virgin Birth. Mkmcconn
- Thanks, Mkmcconn. It is famous, at least among skeptics. Jacquerie27 14:00 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, Mkmcconn -- although I do appreciate the effort, the above links do not cut it. Let me lay my cards on the table: I do not believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, and I do not believe he was the messiah. My people have been rejecting these claims for 2,000 years, so you will understand why we are a little non-plussed when "skeptics" get passionate about disproving something we never believed. Slrubenstein
- If skeptics were arguing to convince you of something you already accept, I could understand why you're non-plussed. They're not. There's also a lot of passion here from a member of your people:
- http://www.messiahtruth.com/is714a.html
- Your points in the VB article were also good and I've learnt from them. Jacquerie27 17:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
Be that as it may, I want to be crystal clear: my point has nothing to do with skeptics versus Christians, or with the question of whether or not Jesus was "really" born of a virgin. My only concern is what makes for a good encyclopedia article -- obviously the main pont of an encyclopedia is to be informative, and I think that all of us here pay at least lip-service to NPOV and accuracy as crucial to this objective. In this article, I have problems with the vague claim about "the famous" use of the argument of silence concerning the Virgin Birth. I am not questioning whether it is a good argument or a bad argument. I am questioning who has made this argument and how famous it is. Slrubenstein
- In the context of the a.f.s, it's famous. It's discussed in the entry for "VB" in the Oxford Companion to the Bible. Jacquerie27 17:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
In general, I am dubious about relying on other websites to answer such questions -- that seems to me to be a rather weak form of research that undermines the credibility of our project. After all, we are a web-based encyclopedia. If we rely on other web-based encyclopedias or other web-based material for information, what real value are we adding to the web? How do we evaluate the information on other websites? I checked out the four websites, and did see that a couple of them invoked the argument of silence. But I do not know who made these websites and they do not seem to be original or authoritative; moreover, they did not provide any evidence as to who first employed this argument, or what its status is among Bible critics, theologians, and historians. You see, there really is a real world outside of the web and websites. There really are theologians and Bible critics who teach courses and write books and articles about these issues. Slrubenstein
- See above about the Oxford Companion to the Bible. Jacquerie27 17:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
I think this article needs to report on what they are doing, and provide an account of debates over the virgin birth (and the argument of silence) in the context of these real debates amoung real people. This would take "real research" -- reading books, searching journals, etc. But the result -- a paragraph that said "The argument from silence was first raised by A in (year). Today scholars are divided into two camps: one (including B, C, and D) accept this argument for the following reasons... The other (including E, F, and G) reject the argument for the following reasons." THIS would make for an informative encyclopedia entry, rather than BS. Slrubenstein
- There was no article on the a.f.s before I created one. It's not perfect, but it's a first step. If every article had to be perfectly worded and fully comprehensive from the moment of its creation, you wouldn't have many articles on the Wiki. And I won't ask what objective BS test you're using, or what rating the article gets on the BS scale. Jacquerie27 17:42 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
- The problem is the Christan Apologists are misleading people as skeptics against the virgin birth of Christ do not use an argument from silence but rather use syllogistic logic:
- Major premise: In the first century CE it was widely believed that women were the 'soil' into which a man planted his seed [1]
- Minor premise: In Roman 1:3 (KVJ) Paul says: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh" (Seed here comes from the Greek word 'spevrma' from which the modern word 'sperm' comes from) [2]
- Conclusion: Paul refutes the virgin birth--by his own words (the use of the word 'spevrma'
- Note this is all nicely cited so there is no original research. Deal with it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:05, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- No, it's not "nicely cited". You've cited a source for a word, and the interpretation of that word, but then you've presented a novel synthesis from those cited facts. Find a reliable secondary source that says exactly what you're trying to say. Doesn't mean you're wrong, just that you can't source it in that way. Guy (Help!) 22:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Chris, I don't doubt the truth of your addition of "Legal" issues, but the credibility is lacking without some reference. Can you trace down som examples of which legal systems or legal decisions limit the use of the argument of silence, so that reporting it here doesn't sound so much like hearsay? Mkmcconn 17:35 May 8, 2003 (UTC)
"legitimate"
The article's use of the words "legitimate" and "reasonably" are somewhat POVs. While personally I mildly agree with them, I'll remove these adjectives for now. Shawnc 22:29, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
- Well I've retained the words but rewrote the article to be more neutral. Shawnc 22:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
OR
This article is literally comprised ENTIRELY of original research, without which it would just be a dicdef.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 08:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I should perhaps have added a comment here that I removed the tags after having added some sources to the scholarly section and the lead. There is a bit of OR in the text-book examples section, but I see no reason anyone would challenge that material, it's quite trivial. --Merzul 21:45, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Scholarly uses
As someone who is familiar with the Christian tradition and, to a lesser extent, with the Jewish tradition, I find these examples confusing. I am merely noting that these examples are somewhat esoteric, and if I find the time I will try to find more generally understandable references to add to (not replace) these examples. --Antelan talk 00:20, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- ^ THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF JESUS Is it a fact or fable? Part 1 http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin_b0.htm
- ^ http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=4690&version=kjv