I'm not sure how many people believe that the resurrection was an actual event. I suspect most believers are merely paying lip service to prevailing religious beliefs without putting much thought into it. Carrier himself suggests that most people don't put much thought into their philosophy or worldview.Interbane wrote:Question everything, debate everything?What’s next, guys? Shall we start debating the age of the earth or how Noah got all those animals aboard the boat or why God put all those dinosaur bones in the ground? I mean, seriously?
The problem is, a massive percentage of people already think the resurrection was an actual event. Literalists don't need a platform for many of the more ridiculous ideas, because the platform already exists in the form of churches. How does the "other side", the rational skeptic, reach the general population except through debate?
Still, I agree with you. The issue isn't to challenge the ridiculous ideas directly, but to challenge the foundations of belief. I'm not sure what the foundation would be, since everything in a literalist's worldview is internally coherent(if also by definition circular). What I always find puzzling is that people accept the bible in the first place. It's not as if Sunday School starts off with the historiographical merits of the authors of the gospels. There is belief before there is critical analysis, and by the time there is critical analysis, it is pointed at the skeptic rather than at the belief(look at all the hoops Flann is jumping through). There is an amazingly admirable quality to the power of the Christian meme to delude people. We can see how it works, but damned if there's a way to undo it.
I agree that we should challenge the foundations of belief, but I also get frustrated with Carrier because he's seriously beating a dead horse here. Hitchens famously said that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. And, indeed, the believer is impervious to evidence. Belief in God and miracles is not reached through the intellect and it will never be effectively challenged by the intellect. As such, Carrier seems to be beating his head against a brick wall and the reader gets to bang his head against the wall too!
Speaking of miracles, I read that the Pope has recently canonized the Rev. Giuseppe Baz, a 17th-century missionary who is credited with having revived the Catholic faith in Sri Lanka. Canonization usually requires verification of two miracles, but the current Pope is trying to inspire people and so is relaxing the rules a little. Last year, the Pope canonized his predecessor, Pope John II, also with just the one miracle.
What's interesting is to see the paltry evidence used to declare a "miracle." In Pope John's case, a French nun, confined to her bed by Parkinson's Disease (or a neurological condition with similar symptoms which can go into remission), is reported to have experienced a "complete and lasting cure after members of her community prayed for the intercession of Pope John Paul II.
Yep, that's all it took. A nun says she believes she was healed when members of the congregation prayed for her. This is why we can't take personal testimony very seriously. In fact, it's quite possible that Sister Marie Simon-Pierre didn't have Parkinson's Disease at all. It's difficult to diagnose without a medical autopsy.
Also, and this seems sort of relevant, Sister Marie Simon-Pierre suffered a relapse of her symptoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatificat ... hn_Paul_II