• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Jesus vs. The Mighty Redwood

MrFrankZito

Thinker
M
Joined
May 14, 2005
Messages
226
Please consider the following two narratives. One story is widely believed (with adherents numbering in the billions), while the other has—to my knowledge—no adherents. Analyze each narrative’s plausibility, and think about whether one is more probable than the other is.

Narrative One: Around the year 33 CE, Jesus of Nazareth was crucified for his perceived crimes against the powers of the day. Jesus, being the Son of God, rose bodily from the dead a few dozen hours later. All the crippling effects of death miraculously were reversed. According to the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus appeared to several individuals, in assorted places, during the course of the next 40 days, apparently fully recovered from brain death’s ravages. Eventually, Jesus ascended to Heaven.

Narrative Two: Around the year 33 CE, in what now is known as the U.S. state of California, a Sierra Redwood spontaneously uprooted itself. There were several eyewitnesses to the event, each one of whom testified that, after the uprooting incident, the Sierra Redwood used its roots as makeshift legs to walk away. What eventually happened to the giant tree is unknown, but, according to historical documents, people from far-flung locales visited the former resting place, marveling at the tree’s wondrous departure.

Which narrative seems more plausible, and why?

Does either story—or both—count as an extraordinary claim?

Do you accept the maxim “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”?

Finally, does one narrative warrant widespread belief, given the evidence we currently possess?


I submit the following answers:

· Both stories are equally implausible, given their violations of the known principles of nature.

· Both stories clearly are extraordinary claims, given the natural principle violations to which I referred.

· I accept the ECREE maxim as a valid, useful tool which helps to overcome human fallibility and achieve genuine knowledge about the world in which we live.

· Given the dearth of extraordinary evidence, neither claim warrants widespread belief or any degree of confidence whatsoever. Both stories should be set aside tentatively, in hopes that better evidence eventually will materialize to either confirm or deny their validity.

__________________________

My Case Against God
 
MrFrankZito said:
Both stories should be set aside tentatively, in hopes that better evidence eventually will materialize to either confirm or deny their validity.
Click to expand...

This is a key part of skepticism and the general scientific process that rational minds perform intuitively, while the more gullible ignore. You aren't proving or disproving things, you are choosing which information to "set aside" until such time better evidence comes along or the understanding to use that information is developed.
 
666 said:
You've convinced me. I kneel and tremble at the Church of the Perambulating Redwood.
Click to expand...

As long as you understand it is but the veriest avatar of the FSM(May His Holy Strands guide and protect us that we may be covered in the Sauce)!
 
Devil's Advocate: "
Ok,
If I may take the position of advocating story number 2...

I visited the Redwoods last year and did find evidence of trees that had been entirely uprooted, and some laying down as if tired from a long walk. Upon revisiting later, the trees that were laying down were gone, presumably to a better place.

Although I have never seen one actually walking, there is no evidence to exclude the possibility. And far more evidence than those silly people sitting in the redwood pews have.
"
 
If I have to pick, I lean slightly more towards the Jesus narrative.

Based almost totally on this argument.

In the world that I perceive both are impossible. So one is not more likely than the other. But suppose that I don't perceive the world correctly? Suppose some combination of my biases and my personal experiences have led me to misperceive the world? How can one know that isn't the case about oneself? I am not sure it is possible to know. So that means I must consider the possibility that my basic views of the world are fundamentally flawed and I must now pick between two possibilities that my world view suggests are impossible.

I think I'll go for the Jesus Story over the walking tree story because so many people believe and promote the Jesus story. In general something that a whole lot of people believe is more likely to be true than something that nobody believes.

Of course, this is a very weak argument, since so many people believe so much wacky and contradictory stuff that what people believe isn't very good evidence for anything, but it's the only basis I can see for picking between the likelihood of one story over the other.
 
Sorry mate, but I have to go with the Jesus sory, too.

George III of England used to talk to trees and I've had contact with him via a medium. Trees never move of their own accord. The one you're talking about was torn out by Odin to use as Thor's hammer-handle.
 
While I agree with the point that you are making, there is a lot more to why the Jesus story has become so popular. It is more to do with the fact that it was a state religion then it being a believable story
 
I don't know, I've had some deep and moving moments with Redwoods, I mean Jesus. Just see my avatar.
 
There is a prevailing feeling amongst Christians (and followers of other systems as well, I suppose) that their fairy story is historically correct, while other fairy stories are just....Fairy stories.
They don't seem to see that all of the fairy stories are equally baseless.
 
Bikewer said:
There is a prevailing feeling amongst Christians (and followers of other systems as well, I suppose) that their fairy story is historically correct, while other fairy stories are just....Fairy stories.
They don't seem to see that all of the fairy stories are equally baseless.
Click to expand...

...and that the other versions of their own fairy story - the Jewish and islamic ones - are crap, while their story is the One True FairytaleTM
 
Well, the bias toward the Jesus story might be simply a result of the negative Anglo influence on the great native populations of the American continent. I think that discounting the walking redwood is simply a cultural bias.

And even Christians would probably admit, if they were the only person left on earth who believed, it would be counted as a virtue. So in all fairness I don't think that the quantity of believers represents a valid position to take.
 
Narrative Two's "historical documents" do not actually exist, whereas "Acts of the Apostles" does exist. I'm not saying "Acts" should be taken as evidence. I'm just saying that there isn't a perfect analogy between the two cases.

Also, Jesus and his mother have been sighted quite a few times in the years since then. This is the first I've heard of the mighty Redwood. Again, there are plenty of alternate explanations for the voices and visions of those who see Jesus, but there aren't similar Redwood sightings.

However, the primary important difference between the two stories is in the mind of the listeners. No one actually believes the Redwood story. You made it up. Therefore, when they hear it, it would be from someone trying to convince them that trees uproot themselves and walk. That's a tough case to make. However, there are people who believe the Jesus story, having heard it as children from other people who also believed it. When they hear the Jesus story, it is not from someone trying to convince them of a new belief, it is from someone trying to reinforce an old belief. That's a much easier selling job.

If, on the other hand, you want to convince them of the falsehood of the Jesus story, you'll have to take a different tack. Your objection is that it violates natural principles. You are undoubtedly correct. The believers would agree. That's why it's called a miracle. Your further objection is the ECREE principle. Unfortunately, they would disagree. They have the ECREF principle. Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Faith. Good luck convincing them they are wrong.
 
The Atheist said:
Didn't Jesus get nailed to one of those?

Just see my avatar! :bgrin:
Click to expand...
I would be very upset if such sacred bark had been profaned in such a way. On the other hand the conjunction of the Divine Saviour and a Redwood would make them even more wondrous objects for me - thanks for increasing my faith!
 
simon dalton said:
While I agree with the point that you are making, there is a lot more to why the Jesus story has become so popular. It is more to do with the fact that it was a state religion then it being a believable story
Click to expand...

That might absolve people in the past...but now? Shouldn't free people across the globe examine their fantastical beliefs in the warm light of evidence?
 
MrFrankZito said:
That might absolve people in the past...but now? Shouldn't free people across the globe examine their fantastical beliefs in the warm light of evidence?
Click to expand...


Why?

Seriously, that's the question a lot of people don't get. Sure, religious beliefs are non-rational, and if subjected to skeptical and fair inquiry, would be rejected. However, why would anyone do that? A lot of people seem to think that religious beliefs impose some sort of burden on the believer, and the believer would gladly throw off that yoke. That isn't so.

People believe narrative number 1 because they have always done so, and it does them no harm, so why shouldn't they? If they already believed narrative number 2, they wouldn't just throw it away all over some silly notion that there's no evidence for it. You'll have to do better than that.
 
Yeah. I think that the walking tree story needs more to it in order to be a true myth.

A more typical one is a local Hopi practice that gets me torqued off. Some of their worship practices require young eagle feathers. Unfortunately the feathers are usually in use by eaglets. They have the religious right to go onto federal land and kill a certain amount of eagle chicks every year. I am not very sympathetic to this, which is probably rather un-pc since we are all supposed to love Native American religious ritual. I recall a story of a ranger a couple years ago camping out near an eagle nest she was protecting from 'being gathered'.

An idea I struggle with is that most religions involve sacrificing something.

http://www.certain-natl.org/hopi.html
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom