Theism.net
Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Meet Professor Cavin
Science Philosopher
Dr. Robert Greg Cavin
Master of Arts and Doctorate
from UC Irvine under Nelson Pike
Masters Degree in Theology from
Fuller Seminary
Bachelor of Arts in Religion
from USC
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date:
Dear Sir,
Your website contains three
major errors regarding my debate with Craig.
First, I did not
"confess" that it is impossible that the disciples -- even the 500+ --
hallucinated. I argued, rather, that
mass hallucinations are wildly improbable.
Second, contrary to your assertion, I do not accept my position -- the
Twin Theory -- on faith. It can be shown
that the probability that God would supernaturally raise Jesus from the dead
(in any form whatever) is astronomically improbable -- so fantastically
improbable that the universe would run out of time waiting for God to bring the
event about. (Of course, a naturalistic resurrection produced scientifically by
use of a "Christenstein Machine" is an
entirely different matter!) The proof follows from well-established theological
and scientific principles; it is in no way based on faith. Although the
Hallucination Theory of, e.g., Ludemann is, as I say,
wildly improbable, it is easy to show that this theory
is still orders of orders of magnitude more likely than a supernatural
resurrection from the dead. Third, it is no "miracle" -- to use the
word you used -- that Jesus had an unknown identical twin who faked the resurrection.
That there was such a twin is the best explanation for the facts of (1) the
empty tomb, (2) the appearances of "the risen Christ," and (3) the
origin of the
Robert Greg Cavin
P.S.: For my argument that there is insufficient
historical evidence to establish the resurrection, see my article in
"Faith & Philosophy" (1995).
Dear Professor,
This is to
acknowledge receipt of your mail. I much appreciate your taking the time to
present your concerns. I shall revisit the debate and take notes regarding my
claims and your concerns about them. Later, I'll copy you on revisions, deletions,
corrections, comments, etc.
With your
permission, I wish to add your e-mail to my site's E-Mail MailBag
pages, for I expect these are comments you'd like for my readers to be aware
of. If this is acceptable, please advise me as to whether you'd like your
e-mail address included.
Respectfully,
G. Zeineldé Jordan
[Dr. Cavin declined the e-mail MailBag
at that time]
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date:
Dear Mr.
I checked your website
today, and found the same misleading statements about my argument against the
resurrection that were there the last time we communicated -- namely:
Science philosopher and debater Robert Greg Cavin conceded in his debate with William Lane Craig
(available at: http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/) that: 1) Christ
existed, faced crucifixion, there is no body, and 2) The disciples saw
something they believed to be Jesus after the crucifixion at different times
and in different places. Cavin point-blankly
confessed that it seems impossible they mass hallucinated but he must cling to
belief in such a miracle to reject another miracle of a resurrected Christ.
Clearly, he accepts his position on faith.
Martin, as did Cavin,
rejected science-based faith when finding its conclusions unfavorable to their
belief systems.
Your argument in these
passages appears to be:
1. Cavin confesses
that it seems impossible that the followers of Jesus had mass hallucinations.
2. Cavin must cling to
belief in the miracle of mass hallucination in order to reject the miracle of
the resurrection of Christ.
Therefore:
3. Cavin clearly
accepts his position on faith.
Your first premise is false. My view has never been that it is impossible
for 500 plus individuals to have the same hallucination. My view, rather, has
always been that it is fantastically improbable that 500 plus individuals had
the same mass hallucination. There is a qualitative logical distinction between
impossibility and fantastic improbability -- and this distinction radically
alters the logical form of the argument.
Your second premise is not
only false but also a case of strawman fallacy. First, I don't accept the theory of mass
hallucinations, and never have. Please
do not continue to say that I do.
Second, by saying that I "must" accept this theory in order to
reject the resurrection you are guilty of the strawman
fallacy -- (grossly) distorting my actual argument in order to make your own
argument look better. One can easily reject the resurrection without accepting
the theory of mass hallucinations. How?
Although mass hallucinations are fantastically improbable, resurrection
from the dead is even astronomically more improbable. Therefore, not only must
one reject mass hallucinations, but a fortiori, one must the resurrection. (Perhaps you and Craig think that just
because one theory is improbable, another theory is automatically probable --
but, if you do, you are simply mistaken.) By omitting this key point in my
debate with Craig from your website, you distort my argument, and mislead your
readers. What's the point in that?
Your conclusion -- that I
accept my view on faith -- is a clear nonsequitur (it
follows neither deductively nor inductively from your two premises), and, once
again, a (gross) distortion of my position.
First, I am an advocate of the Twin Theory -- not the
theory of mass hallucinations nor Craig's silly "Dave
Theory." Second, I spent over 50 pages
(pp. 314 - 355) of my doctoral dissertation proving the theory. That's hardly acceptance by
"faith." Moreover, my article,
"Is There Sufficient Historical Evidence To
Establish The Resurrection Of Jesus?" (Faith & Philosophy, July, 1995)
shows that even if, for the sake of argument, we accept the gospels at face
value (something which I do not do), the evidence is
logically insufficient to establish the resurrection. Craig (to the best of my knowledge) has never
responded to this article, and leading Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga in his new book "Warranted Christian
Belief" has cited it with approval.
In addition, my! APA colloquium paper, "A Logical [lost text]
Robert Greg Cavin
Professor:
My mention of
your work is at the following three links. I checked them before mailing you
and they uploaded correctly. Please notify me as to whether you’re viewing old
pages there or accessing my comments from another’s site. I checked them again
this evening and made modifications in light of your concerns below. They
contain the rewrite following the links below.
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/04jordan.htm
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/locks3.htm
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/default_files/hallu.htm
http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/cavin.htm
Hallucinations:
From my debate with Temy Beal at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/04jordan.htm
Please demonstrate the
veracity of your claim that, "Mass hallucination is a well known and
fairly common occurrence." Atheistic Harvard professor Michael Martin
("The Case Against Christianity," 1991, p.
92) wrote:
Is it really true that
there is no such thing as mass hallucination? In fact, psychologists have
studied a closely related phenomenon known as collective delusion or mass
hysteria. In this phenomenon . . ..
Notice he shifts to a
"closely related phenomenon [collective delusion]," not the
phenomenon at issue [mass hallucination]. Charge me with splitting hairs.
However, hallucinations are sensory experiences (e.g., "I see the
Abominable Snowman sitting on my sofa drinking coffee, I hear his growl, and I
feel his claws ripping my flesh"), whereas delusions are beliefs (e.g.,
"The Abominable Snowman is out to get me.")
Temy, Martin took a huge leap to explain sensory phenomena using delusionary phenomena. You claim, "Mass hallucination
is a well known and fairly common occurrence." First, define
"common," then define "fairly." Mass hallucination is not a
common, a fairly common, nor an established phenomenon. Notice Martin
challenged the established scientific understanding that mass hallucinations
are non-existent. Further, your Conyers scenario [visions of Virgin Mary in
Further, mass optical
illusion phenomenon such as the Conyers, Georgia sightings are no indication of
veracity of mass hallucinations, for all seers of such had to travel to Conyers
to see it, unlike the phenomenon of the disciples. Mass optical illusions I can
buy, or, for all we know, Mary was actually there. Personally, I would not
know.
Most of
your concerns presented in your current mailing to me, I expect, are satisfied
by the rewrite. Regarding your quotation concerns:
“Regarding the quotations you have listed from my debate
with Craig: Yes, these are accurate (although you have typos) of
some of the things I said in the debate. However, you leave out many
important points I made against Craig in the debate, and you have also taken
the last quotation out of context (I had been agreeing with Craig only for the
sake of argument). Moreover, you must also understand that, due to the
constraints of time and, even more, the unsophisticated nature of the audience,
what I stated in the debate was a highly water-down version of a very technical
argument. If you want your readers to gain an accurate representation of
my position, then you should summarize my arguments against Craig in my Faith
& Philosophy article and my APA paper -- especially the latter.
As I am working hard on a book on the resurrection right now, I do not have
time to summarize these for you. After you have done so, please e-mail me
the entire section of your website on my arguments for my approval.”
1)
If you or your staff are
able (time constraints, etc.) to send me corrections on the typos, it would be
appreciated.
2)
My reference to your
work is regarding hallucinations. You are a non-Resurrection advocate (of
scholarly caliber) who rejects mass-hallucinations. Beyond that realm of my
Resurrection debating, your work has served its purpose. That is not to say you
are not welcome to provide me a link for readers to learn more about your work.
You are. Or, send me contact information, purchasing materials information of
your papers referenced above, Web or e-mail links. I will make it all available
to my readers. Currently, I only have Craig’s link available to offer readers
purchase information.
3)
Your statement of
concerns (as you can see) has been added to the quotations. Let the readers do
with them what they will.
4)
I have provided you the
links to my mention of your agreement with me regarding hallucinations. I have
no pages refuting your “arguments.” Craig has already done so successfully.
Again, readers will be welcome to review your extended writings on the matter
should you provide them. I reject your Twin Theory on the same basis as Craig.
My mention of you pertained to your professional opinion of the
mass-hallucination hypothesis. I thank you for your contribution.
5)
Professor, with
all due respect, what I seek from you is confirmation of my quotations,
challenges of any failures on my part to clearly differentiate my opinions from
facts. I am out to present accurate information and keep it in harmony with
those whom I quote. I am not one of your students. It is not my aim to acquire
your “approval.” Please, save your red ink for your students.
“Also, please, you need to acknowledge Dr. Carlos A. Colombetti in that section of your website as he is
co-author with me of both the twin theory and the (forthcoming) book, Double
Cross.”
This
is the first of my knowledge of co-authorship. As you can see, it has been duly
noted.
Overall,
after reviewing the tapes, I agree that my comment that prompted you to write
was more opinion and interpretation on my part. I, too, considered it
misleading. You were proper to want that changed.
Sincerely,
G.
Zeineldé Jordan
--------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date:
Dear Mr.
I have reviewed the updates
you sent me. I do not have time to comply with the requests you made in your
letter to me, unfortunately. Also, I should say that it is customary to ask
someone's approval before posting his/her comments on the web. I notice that
you have included my recent correspondence with you but have not asked my
permission. Is this what one would expect of a follower of Christ?
To which
Regarding the
attachment to which you refer (hereby re-attached for confirmation) [http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/probable.htm]:
Is yours not a
public forum? Why the confidentiality?
"Mr.
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date: Thu,
Dear Mr.
The following preposterous
comment would rightly make any thinking person break into a fit of hysterical
laughter!
<<I am sincere in
claiming that the Twin Theory, indeed, would serve as a marvelous Mel Brooks or
Woody Allen styled comedy. It is, for the truth seeker, absurd. That is my
opinion, for to embrace the Twin Theory, one must accept:
1) Jesus was mistakenly
switched as a baby with another baby.
2) The new Mary's baby just
so happened to have an identical twin.
3) The twin had no knowledge
of the Christ figure's likeness until the twin just so happened to travel (by
coincidence) to a city where his twin had just been crucified.
4) The twin (quick to think)
realized that he could claim his unknown twin's identity, therefore allowing
him the glamour of being a hated, despised, blasphemous, criminal whom the
religious order and Roman authorities executed. Actually, had the mistaken
identity placed the other twin on the cross, he most likely would have let the
mistaken identity stand and hightail it out of that town. Or, at least consider
he better leave soon before the authorities confused him for the criminal they
sought. They might have also crucified him just to be safe they got the right guy.
5) The twin either on his
own or by enlisting the aid of others did away with Christ's corpse.
6) The twin cosmetically
altered himself to reflect scars appropriate to that of a crucified person.
7) The twin's personal
characteristics of speech, mannerisms, etc. were close enough to Christ's that
those who had been closest to Christ never detected the deceit.
8) The twin's motive remains
to be learned.
9) The Twin Theory does not
account for Paul's road-to-Damascus conversion.
10) The Twin Theory does not
explain what the 500 people saw when witnessing Christ's ascension to heaven.
To quote Cavin, "A mass hallucination to Jesus'
followers only would have involved 500-plus individuals having the same
hallucination." Apparently, he accepts the validity of the passage yet
rejects mass-hallucination theory but offers no Twin Theory apologetic.
This comment is a
particularly egregious exercise in the logical fallacy of special pleading,
and, thus, its author violates
The above comment contains
an implicit argument which goes into standard form as follows:
The Twin Theory involves a
conjunction of events that are each individually highly improbable.
Therefore:
The Twin Theory would make a
marvelous Mel Brooks' comedy.
Two
preliminary observations. First, the author of the comment states, and I
quote, "[Cavin] offers no Twin Theory
apologetic." Yet this author entirely ignores the detailed (50 page)
argument I've given for the Twin Theory in my doctoral dissertation Miracles,
Probability, and the Resurrection of Jesus. How curious! How convenient! He
also ignores, even more curiously and conveniently, the argument I gave in my
(July 1995) Faith & Philosophy article "Is There Sufficient Historical
Evidence To Establish The Resurrection Of Jesus?"
And now, most curiously and conveniently, he ignores the argument I gave in my
APA paper "A Logical Analysis And Critique Of The
Historical Argument For The Revivification Of Jesus". This author,
thus, violates
Dr. Cavin ASSUMED
The second preliminary
observation, and a very crucial point, is that the author of the aforementioned
comment also commits the strawman fallacy -- the
fallacy of attributing to an arguer an argument other than the one that he or
she in fact holds, and then criticizing that argument instead of the one
actually given by the arguer. Thus this author states, and again I quote:
I think the
obvious error [Cavin makes] is [his] assumption that P(Spirit) = 0%.
In plain English,
it sounds like [Cavin's] saying, "Because it is
impossible for the spiritual/supernatural to exist, and the resurrection is an
alleged supernatural event, regardless of how improbable the alternative is, it
is still more likely than an actual resurrection and therefore I will accept
it".
That was not
The truth, however, is that
I neither assume nor personally hold -- nor have ever claimed -- that the
supernatural is impossible. Nor do I assume, hold, or claim that the
supernatural has a probability of zero. In fact, I believe in God. This author
is simply putting his own words into my mouth in order to make my argument look
like it's begging the question, when in fact it does not. I have found that
Christians, when backed into a corner and unable to come up with any
intelligent defense of their position, uniformly resort in the end to the old
ploy of falsely accusing their opponent of denying the possibility of the
supernatural (and, thereby, do the biding of the Dark Lord). That
way they can simply dismiss the argument (that is, their caricature of it) as
begging the question (even though it really does not) without having to bother
to study it. That's apparently what's happened with this author, who, as
I noted before, hasn't read the material I've written on the Resurrection.
Now let us turn to the
author's comment itself. What this author omits in his comment -- and herein
lies his special pleading -- is that for each improbable element of the Twin
Theory, the Resurrection Theory contains a corresponding element that is
astronomically more improbable. For instance, as the author correctly notes, it
is improbable to some degree that Jesus was mistakenly switched with another
baby. But what he again most conveniently ignores is that it is even more
improbable -- but, very importantly, in no way at all impossible -- that God
would supernaturally reverse even one femtosecond's
worth of postmortem decomposition in the molecular components of even one cell
in Jesus' body. The first probability is admittedly small, but still greater
than 1 in a billion. The second probability -- although greater than zero since
supernatural events are NOT impossible -- is less than a gooleplex.
It would be like picking out one grain of sand painted red on a beach the size
of
And the camels are even more
MONSTROUS still! For the Resurrection Theory doesn't hold that Jesus was simply
resuscitated like Lazarus. It says, rather, that Jesus was transformed into a
"spiritual" body with lot's of magic special
powers. Let's compare the most beloved comic book hero of all, Superman, to the
Resurrected Jesus. Bullets can't hurt Superman. Superman can't fall to his
death. Fire can't kill Superman. Neither can electricity. On the other hand,
Kryptonite can kill Superman, and, presumably, enough thermonuclear weapons can
too. Now, the Resurrected Jesus, though a lot like Superman, far exceeds him.
Bullets can't hurt the Resurrected Jesus. He can't fall to his death. Fire
can't kill him. Neither can electricity. But, in contrast to Superman,
Kryptonite can't kill the Resurrected Jesus. And no quantity of thermonuclear
weapons can harm him as well. In fact, the Resurrected Jesus can sit on (or
inside of) the Sun, and not feel the slightest bit of discomfort. Furthermore,
unlike Superman, the Resurrected Jesus can't age. He remains young forever.
Moreover, unlike Superman, the Resurrected Jesus can't get sick. Neither HIV or Herpes can infect him. He can't get leukemia, have a heart attack, etc. Superman is able to leap
tall buildings at a single bound. He can even fly. And in the old TV show he
can even pass through solid walls. The Resurrected Jesus can do all these
things too. But, beyond Superman, he can also ascend up into heaven. This
means, in contrast to Superman, that the Resurrected Jesus can move at speeds
much faster than the speed of light (for, otherwise, he would have only
traveled 2,000 light years so far since leaving the Mount of Olives), and even
move from one dimension to another! Indeed, the magical powers of the
Resurrected Jesus far exceed by orders of order of magnitude the combined
powers of Superman, the entire Justice League, the X Men, the Power Rangers,
leprechauns, pixies, faeries, elves, gnomes, genies, and wizards. Watch out
Guys! Now, are these things possible? Sure. Could God do them? Of course! But would
he? Science shows them to be antecedently astronomically improbable. And there
is not one scintilla of evidence to show that God would desire to raise Jesus
from the dead. It's an epistemic Deus ex Machina.
If the author of the above
comment were thinking logically, he would have given the following argument:
The Twin Theory commits one
to swallowing a million tinsy gnats. The Resurrection
Theory commits one to swallowing a googleplex of
MONSTROUS camels.
Therefore:
The Twin Theory is
astronomically more probable than the Resurrection Theory.
Let's face it. Funny
coincidences do sometimes occur. But Superman is the stuff of comic books. Mel
Brooks -- not to mention Woody Allen – would have a field day with the
Resurrection!!!
Mr.
Sincerely,
Robert Greg Cavin
In other words, “If
I misrepresent you,
Overall, I reject
the Twin Theory because I do not accept the high improbability of numerous high
improbabilities falling in concert regarding an event that a single highly
improbable happening could explain. Dr. Cavin has not
argued the elements I presented. He has merely argued they are more probable. I
disagree. Readers can make their own decisions.
---------- Original Message
----------------------------------
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date: Sat,
<<Steve, Understand
that I neither accept nor reject the 500 passage. I referred to Cavin's claim that a mass hallucination was more probable
than a Christ resurrection because it would only require a shared vision of 500
people. My concern is the disciples' and Paul's visions. Once that is
determined, we'll let apologetics go where they will. I hope that clarifies my
position.
Cavin responds:
In His Name
Locks challenged the “accept nor reject” statement. It was meant in regards
to relevance of the disciples’ visions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: J.P.
Holding <jphold@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re:
Date: Sat,
Yeesh!
This guy needs
serious help. Like he thinks you can get a copy of his Ph. D. thesis from Barnes
and Noble? Not that it matters; you meant in context he gives no such argument.
I'll be looking to see if I can get the other items....
>And the camels are even
more MONSTROUS still! For the
Resurrection Theory doesn't hold that >Jesus was simply resuscitated like
Lazarus. It says, rather, that Jesus was
transformed into >a "spiritual" body with lot's of magic special
powers. Let's compare the most beloved
comic >book hero of all, Superman, to the Resurrected Jesus.
What for? Just
to be silly and try to tar the rez of Jesus with a
silly brush. The same would be true for any supernatural being. Cavin has obviously learned the Robert Price technique
here.
> Resurrected Jesus can
move at speeds much faster than the speed of light (for, otherwise, he
>would have only traveled 2,000 light years so far since leaving the Mount
of Olives), and even >move from one dimension to another!
Yeah,
and so what??? And this is what he has to resort to, since he knows it isn't
impossible:
> possible? Sure. Could
God do them? Of course! But would he?
Science shows them to be >antecedently astronomically improbable. And there is not one scintilla of evidence to
show >that God would desire to raise Jesus from the dead. It's an epistemic Deus ex Machina.
To which I say:
SO WHAT? Like he's got inside scoop on God's list of things to do? It's telling
that he tucks the "real reason" in at the end of a long list of silly
comparisons and jokes. (I assume he means by "evidence" that he doesn't
allow for theological/soteriological reasons to raise
Jesus from the dead -- i.e., to point to Jesus as the way of salvation. IOW I'm
guessing he wants a legal doc -- hard to tell, since he never says what would
be proof to satisfy.)
> The Resurrection Theory
commits one to swallowing a googleplex of MONSTROUS
camels.
Oh, I will have
FUN taking this guy on. :-) He has a bit of creative juices, and that's really
all.
> Mr. Jordan, you have my
permission to quote from this e-mail in your website but only on the >
condition that you quote the entire e-mail in one single, continuous
piece. Please do me the > courtesy of
not misquoting me.
In other words,
don't rob him of his one real weapon, which is the ability to use silliness to
daze the reader while not actually defending your case, other than by referrals
to items people just won't be able to get to easily.
Just like Farrell Till, only he's Mel Brooks rather than [lost text]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date:
I am seeing
about getting Cavin's Ph. D. thesis copied for me.
There are only 2 copies in the entire
From: Steve Meikle strefanash@clear.net.nz
STEVE QUOTES:
> And the camels are even more MONSTROUS still! For the Resurrection Theory doesn't hold that Jesus was simply resuscitated like Lazarus. It says, rather, that Jesus was transformed into a "spiritual" body with lot's of magic special powers. Let's compare the most beloved comic book hero of all, Superman, to the Resurrected Jesus. Bullets can't hurt Superman. Superman can't fall to his death. Fire can't kill Superman. Neither can electricity. On the other hand, Kryptonite can kill Superman, and, presumably, enough thermonuclear weapons can too.
Strefanash: I will arise to the defense of the most favourite hero of my childhood. The Man of Steel routinely
sunbathed INSIDE stars. (as long as they were not red
stars) therefore he is immune to thermonuclear weapons. This means,
in contrast to Superman, that the > >Resurrected Jesus can move at speeds
much faster than the speed of light
Strefanash:
Yet again, for someone willing to accuse his opponents of straw men he commits
enough of them to suggest that superman can NOT travel faster than light. He
traveled back in time by flying faster than
the speed of light many times. Even in non canonical works like the Ilya and Alexander Salkind
movies, when Lois Lane was killed in despair, he flew faster than light and
went back in time far enough to rescue Lois before she died.
Cavin, or whoever this is, is as ignorant of the
superman canon as he is of the Christian one (the serious stuff is coming, bear
with me!)
> >(for, otherwise, he would have only traveled 2,000 light years
so far since leaving the Mount of Olives), and even moe
from one dimension to another! Indeed, the magical powers of the Resurrected
Jesus far exceed by orders of order of magnitude the combined powers of
Superman, the entire Justice League, the X Men, the Power Rangers, leprechauns,
pixies, faeries,
elves, gnomes, genies, and wizards. Watch out Guys! Now, are these
things possible? Sure. Could God do them? Of
course! But would he?
Strefanash:
So Cavin believes in God yet dares pronounce what God
would or would not choose to do (special divine intervention) on the basis
of the probability of what occurs in nature (i.e., without God's special
intervention). The determination of probability as regards the creation running
according to the laws God worked into the creation is one thing. The
probability that God would temporarily circumvent these laws is another thing
altogether, and is based on His declared volition, not random chance or even
impersonal mechanical determinism in anyway. Is confusing these
a massive category fallacy? It is certainly a fallacy of some kind.
How nature runs is one thing. How god would chose to
override it is another thing. The probability of the resurrection comes from
God's express declaration that he would do such a thing. If God exists,
declared something and is of honourable character
then the chance of the declared event happening becomes certain. And to link
the Son of God with fairies, elves and the like is to simply ignore the vast
moral difference between the two things. IOW [in other words] he takes fantasy
creatures out of their fantasy context, then takes Christ out of His spiritual
context then declares them to be the same category . . . For shame
He says he has not ruled out the supernatural by ascribing it a probability of
0 %. But then he rules it out by other tricks, fallacious ascriptions of
probability, and category fallacies (?) comparing Jesus Christ to elves.
I suspect that this first was Tim's point but the humanities have blunted my
appreciation of numbers. I need words instead.
My point is that Cavin’s argument only has any merit
at all if he does the very thing he denies he does (i.e., ascribing 0%
probability to the event. He knows he would be seen to be merely prejudiced if
he did deny at the outset any probability to the supernatural, so he denies he
does it and then smuggles it in
And so if he does not deny any chance of miracles he
only gives his aesthetic preference when he denies the resurrection. I am
supposed to be impressed??
>Science shows them to be antecedently astronomically
improbable.
Stref:
Science shows NOTHING of the sort, being confined to the natural world it
CANNOT speak of what, if anything, lies beyond it.
This is sloppy and dishonest thinking. As an atheist I knew full well that my
denial of miracles was contingent on my denial of God, so I knew that I needed
actual FACTS to prove the issue either way. So I sought and God answered me. He
called me a fraud, as the author of this pseudo scientific missive is a fraud
>And there is not one scintilla of evidence
to show that God would desire to raise Jesus from the dead.
Strefanash:
Not God's declaration of intent, nothing. The only ex here is ex cathedra as Cavin or whomever it is pronounces
it to be so.
. It's an epistemic Deus ex Machina.
From: "Anthony Rimell" <AnthonyRimell@hotmail.com>
Date:
Subject: Cavin's arguments
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think,
following on from Steven’s comments, that if this debate is considered worth pursuing,
certain questions need first to be settled.
1 Given that Cavin does concede the resurrection is possible, and that
it is possible for God to have done such a thing, could Cavin
explain what criteria he considers would have to be met for God to undertake a
miracle of otherwise extremely unlikely occurrence.
2 Given that Cavin denies the validity of those who claimed to have seen
the resurrected Jesus (And I agree too to put aside the 500 passage for now),
what evidence would Cavin consider acceptable for an
event to have occurred. Is all human
witness to be put aside?
Only with
these answered would I want to put forward any comments, as I consider that at
present there are some foundational gaps in our points of understanding of each
other - or at the least my understanding of Cavin and
his position.
Granted, he
may have answered these in other fora: however could he give a short answer (though
one sufficiently detailed for him to consider that he has covered all the
supporting evidence and arguments he wishes to) of these at this point.
Yours in Him
Aristarchus
Date: Sat,
To: "Robert Greg Cavin"
CC: "Steve Locks" <slocks@globalnet.co.uk>
Subject: Re: E-Mails
Professor:
Attached is an HTML page of all our interaction. I do not mind uploading your
comments but I insist on my clarifications being included. I do not want myself
misrepresented any more than I wanted you misrepresented by me. For your files,
you can easily delete text beyond your comments. Also, in the MailBag are comments from readers. Anyone supporting your
theory is CERTAINLY welcome to submit comments and I will enthusiastically post
them as well.
Many of my readers are "fencesitters" who
are reading to gather both perspectives. Give some thought to it then let me
know if you agree on uploading it to the MailBag. I
am fine with either decision.
Much thanks to Steve Locks for his efficient file keeping.
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Subject: Re: E-Mails
Date:
Mr.
Thanks for supplying me with the lost e-mail. I appreciate
it. Have you heard about Richard Swinburne's
new book on the Resurrection due out in January 2003?
From: "G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se."
To: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Sent:
Subject: Re: E-Mails
I only know it is forthcoming. I do not know the contents.
I'm curious, if you don't mind my asking, whatever came of
the Twin? Is that and his motive covered in your other
material? I am not asking in a challenging way--I'm just plain curious.
In any case, thanks for all your effort in seeing that we both were understood.
My best to your current manuscript. After our
exchange, I take it that an autographed copy is out of the question [chuckle].
G.Z. Jordan
From:
"Robert Greg Cavin"
Subject: Re: E-Mails
Date:
I'm
running out the door, but here is a quick reply. The Twin Theory
predicts that we would find references to Jesus being out of
From: Steve Meikle <strefanash@clear.net.nz>
Date:
Subject: Re: Jesus in
I have heard of these. What I have heard was
not that they were post resurrection but that they account for the allegedly
"lost" yours between the ages of 12 and 30 where the Bible is silent
about the life of the young Jesus.
But I can't give any scholarly attestation;
though for all I know this idea is very recent
The idea that Jesus could have simply worked
in total obscurity in his father's business as a carpenter or builder is deemed
totally unacceptable to a certain mindset - they need to fill in the blanks.
And I have only ever heard the idea that he was in
This is the kind if doctrine beloved of New Agers and the like.
It is a tribute to Mr. Cavin's
attachment to the twin theory that he would link these two completely spurious
ideas as if the cumulative weight of specious argument were somehow
persuasive.
The Twin theory is ad hoc, and his link of it
to the traditions of an Indian Jesus is even more ad hoc.
It would be more consistent to deny that He
ever existed, as classical Marxist thought does (did?).
But Mr. Cavin is confronted with an empty tomb that won't go away,
and unlike the average man in the street in this secular society of ours
he is unable to ignore it outright
Strefanash
From: Patrick Narkinsky <patrick@wingedpigs.com>
Date:
I
don't know where the
might be a bit of Talmudic propaganda.)
The Jesus went to
There is also a claimed "found" document in a tibetan monastery from the 19th
century. Like many of these documents, it was "lost" not long
after it was "found", and only one person has ever "seen"
it.
Incidentally,
this alleged document described Jesus (known as "Issa")
spent the years BEFORE the crucifixion in
Patrick Narkinsky
patrick@wingedpigs.com
From: "James Patrick Holding" <jphold@earthlink.net>
Date:
Ugh,
>>>I'm running out the door, but here is a quick reply. The
Twin Theory predicts that we would find references to Jesus being out of
This man is desperate beyond all imagining. All of those traditions are
regarded as being of the influence of Christian missions.
He's just one brick short of the "Jesus was a space alien" theory
AFAICS.
Take care and God bless,
YFS,
JP
Now, back to Tim and probabilities:
From: "Tim" <timstall@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Equations
Date:
Probability applied to Twin Theory:
BACKGROUND
----- (1) Probability is not Actuality --------------------
P (x) = 1% means that given a hundred tries, the chance of 'x' occurring on the
first try is 1%.
Probability is essentially a potential/possibility. It is not an Actuality.
Historical events are an actuality (they actually happened). Therefore,
probability doesn't really apply to past events. However, probability could
apply to a similar event in the future.
In other words, P (x) doesn't tell if 'x' is Actual, it merely tells the
probability of 'x' occurring again. For example, if I have a 1/Billion chance
of winning the lottery, that still doesn't tell you if I've actually won it or
not.
----- (2) Statistics Comment --------------------
I don't know where this would fit it, but a random thought:
If P (x) = 1/Billion
- That doesn't tell if 'x' has actually happened or not
- If 'x' occurs on the first try that's really something (and that does not
change that P (x) still = 1/Billion)
- If you try a Billion times and 'x' occurs once, no big deal (for example, a
Billion people play the lottery, odds are 1/Billion, 1 person wins).
---- (3) The improbable is always more probable than the
impossible." ---------
In more scientific terms:
P (x) = Possibility of x
P (improbable) = say 1%
P (impossible) = 0%
0 < 1
Therefore P (impossible) < P (improbable).
---- (4) P (A) given B = P (A/B) --------------------
P (A) = Probability of A
P(A/B) = Probability of A GIVEN B.
The P(A) does not necessarily equal P(A/B). For example, the probability of me
making a safe airplane flight is much greater given a full fuel tank. Likewise,
the P (evolution/theistic guidance) may actually be quite reasonable (although
I am certainly not commenting on if theistic evolution is actual).
APPLIED TO CAVIN:
---- (1) First I thought that:
P (spirit existing) = 0%
P (Cavin's theory) = 1%
And, although in history and science, you'd never base
things off 1%, it is still more probable than the 0%, and therefore he's
accepting it.
I think the obvious error is the assumption that P (Spirit) = 0%.
In plain English, it sounds like he's saying, "Because it is impossible
for the spiritual/supernatural to exist, and the resurrection is an alleged
supernatural event, regardless of how improbable the alternative is, it is
still more likely than an actual resurrection and therefore I will accept
it".
---- (2) It was then clarified, and it seemed that:
P1 = P (twin being switched) = very low
P2 = P (Jesus having virgin birth) = very, very , very
low
Therefore P1, although unlikely, is still much more probable than P2.
If I have interpreted this correctly, it contain a big error because it does
not account for P (A/B)
P(Virgin Birth/Natural Cause) = very, very, very, low
P(Virgin Birth/Supernatural Cause) = P(God wanted it) [The probability of the
virgin birth is the same as the probability of God wanting it, because God is
not limited by space/time or matter].
So the comparison should not be: P (twin) vs. P (virgin birth), but rather:
P1 = P (twin swapping/Natural Cause) = very low
P2 = P (virgin birth/Supernatural Cause) = reasonable
Therefore, statistically speaking, I think it P2 is more probable.
From: "James Patrick Holding" jphold@earthlink.net
Date: Sat,
To: Jordan
Reply-To: jphold@earthlink.net
Subject: Cavin article - sit down and take laughing
gas
OK, are you ready for this?
No sign of the Evil Twin Theory in this 1995 article [Faith & Philosophy].
But it's clear why he came up with it. He's a man in a corner getting gigged
for plumbing the depths of desperation. His 1995 F & P argument in essence
is that:
a) The resurrected body had certain properties such
as, i.e., never getting sick or injured.
b) But we have no evidence that, i.e., Jesus didn't get a cold in 43 AD, or get
hit on the head in 503 A.D. (actual examples) IOW, no proof that the condition
was permanent.
c) Hence there is not enough evidence to conclude that Jesus was resurrected.
He may have been revived temporarily by a powerful evil spirit or by aliens
(actual examples! -- said to be "conceptually possible").
I don't think it's going to be very hard to take Cavin
down a few notches. Just quoting some of this idiocy may be enough! :- Dare I
wonder if Faith & Philosophy lets stuff like this through just to make
Skepticism look less appealing...
Well, next, to see about getting that Ph. D. thesis. That may take a while.
Take care and God bless,
YFS,
JP
From: "Daniel" <pnpmacknam@email.msn.com>
To: Jordan
Subject: Cavin
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 13:01:54 –0800
Cavin wrote:
First, I did not "confess" that it is impossible that the disciples
-- even the 500+ -- hallucinated. I argued, rather, that mass
hallucinations are wildly improbable. Second, contrary to your
assertion, I do not accept my position -- the Twin Theory -- on faith.
I reply:
Nothing is accepted without some direct reason, nor can be. It is obviously
quite easy for some leader to die and then his twin or look-alike to take over
without his followers realizing it. But, such a scenario seems to me to require
a degree of "stupidity" on the part of his followers that is equal to
that required for a mass-hallucination. The basic Biblical data which the Twin
Theory argues from centers on the fact that a person whose body has been made
anew in a *perfect* state will not look terribly like that face which died.
Jesus' body was as healthy as it was because Jesus kept the contingent Law
perfectly from the moment of his birth, yet, if he ever got tired, then his
face would be prone to look less than pristinely healthy. He reached initial
physical maturity at the normal post-deluvian (PD)
age of 14-16, and this was completed at the normal PD age of 20 (21 from
conception). Thus, Jesus' living body was a human body as it would have been in
the age in which humans lived. He could grow old and wrinkly, and even die a
natural death. He just never sinned against the contingent Law. How old would
he have looked in the few days or weeks prior to his death? Likely not nearly
so well as he looked after his body was made perfect. He would have looked so
perfect, in fact, that some of his friends would not easily recognize him considering
their emotional state after his great death. Add to this the fact that many of
them did not expect to see him again.
Cavin continued:
It can be shown that the probability that God would supernaturally raise Jesus
from the dead (in any form whatever) is astronomically improbable -- so
fantastically improbable that the universe would run out of time waiting for
God to bring the event about. (Of course, a naturalistic resurrection produced
scientifically by use of a "Christenstein
Machine" is an entirely
different matter!)
I reply:
If the body is a machine, then there is nothing preventing someone with
sufficient power and wisdom to make the machine alive again. It would appear
that the micro-biology involved in the conception of this machine in the first
place would readily allow that this machine be made new at any point whatever
after conception. In fact, it requires no more power to conceive this machine
than it does to kill it.
Cavin continued:
The proof follows from well-established theological and scientific principles;
it is in no way based on faith. Although the Hallucination Theory of, e.g., Ludemann is, as I say, wildly improbable, it is easy to
show that this theory is still orders of orders of magnitude more likely than a
supernatural resurrection from the dead.
I reply:
The likelihood a given action is relative to the power and wisdom made use of.
If the power and wisdom made use of is some version of current human
power/wisdom, then some actions are much more difficult. It's a relative
matter, and a microbe cannot even conceive of human power.
Cavin continued:
Third, it is no "miracle" -- to use the word you used -- that Jesus
had an unknown identical twin who faked the resurrection. That there was such a
twin is the best explanation for the facts of (1) the empty tomb, (2) the
appearances of "the risen Christ," and (3) the origin of the
I reply:
Does Cavin have a certain (I mean, an unassailable)
definition of 'supernatural'? Not a simple statement, but a definition so
careful that it has no holes that can be used to destroy the argument against
the supernatural. I find that very few people, on either side, understand what
'supernatural' really is. The idea of 'supernatural' is a hangover from times
far gone in which the *natural* was thought to be quite simple. We do not know
so well of what the *natural* is even yet. What, today, is state-of-the-art
physics would have been perfectly non-natural in Francis Bacon's way of
thinking.
Daniel
From: " G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se.
Sent:
Subject: Holtz
A recent contender had comments that are in
the attachment. They might
interest you.
Either way, have a great 2003.
Sincerely,
Attachment:
Jordan-conversion
critic, Brian Holtz (brian@holtz.org), also criticizes Dr. Cavin:
“Nothing in the
linked article (about a Twin Jesus theory) comes close to evaluating the relative
probabilities of any of the possibilities I listed.”
“This finding [
From this analysis we may observe that:
Frankly, I favor Cavin’s
Twin Theory. It at least offers alternatives to Holtz’s open ends.
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
Date: Thu,
Dear Mr.
I'm sorry, but I can't help you. I am used to being asked to
evaluate scholarly research. The attached "word-bite" is
nearly unintelligible, as the comments are all taken out of
context. Without a context there is no way to tell what is meant
by: "Jordan-conversion critic," "the linked article,"
"the relative probabilities," "This finding [
Regards,
RGC
From: " G. Zeineldé Jordan, Se."
Date: Thu,
To:
"Robert Greg Cavin"
Subject: Re: Holtz
You misunderstood. I was not soliciting your "help." I was informing you that you have a critic. I am fine; his criticism of your work is posted in my pages. It is for readers to decide.
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
To: Jordan
Subject: Re: Holtz
Date: Thu,
You say: <<You misunderstood. I was not soliciting your "help." I was informing you that you have a critic. I am fine; his criticism of your work is posted in my pages. It is for readers to decide. You say this critic is criticizing my "work"? This is a surprise to me. What work of mine is he criticizing? What is the title and the publication data of the work? As of today, I have never published anything on the Twin Theory. Your "critic" is then criticizing a Strawman, not my work.
From: "Robert Greg Cavin"
To: Jordan
Cc: "carlos c"
Subject: Fw: Holtz
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:41:50 –0800
Dear Mr.
I have not yet received a response from you in reply to my last e-mail inquiry. In your previous e-mail, you stated that I have a critic -- one Mr. Holtz -- and that you have posted on the pages of your website "his criticism of [my] work." Since I have never heard of Mr. Holtz, or his criticism, I wrote you back requesting that you identify the work of mine to which you, and he, refer. I would ask that you please inform me, specifically, of the title of this "work," its place and date of publication, as well as the page numbers to which Mr. Holtz's critique refers. I would also like to know whether any quotations are made from this "work," and what these quotations are. As I said in my last e-mail, it comes as a complete surprise to me to hear that anyone is criticizing my "work" on the Twin Theory, because, as of yet, I have purposely published nothing on the Twin Theory. Therefore, if your website makes the claim that Mr. Holtz is criticizing my "work" on the Twin Theory, you should now understand that this claim is not true and you should remove that claim from your website. The same holds if what you are claiming is that Mr. Holtz is criticizing my argument for the Twin Theory, since I have not yet published an argument for the Twin Theory. In fact, the same holds even if you are simply claiming that what Mr. Holtz is criticizing is my version of the Twin Theory. For, once again, I have published nothing about this. Neither you, Mr. Holtz, nor anyone else, except my co-author Professor Colombetti, is in a position to know what that version of the Twin Theory is. So, again, I would please ask that you provide me with the information requested and please update your website. Thank you.
-- RGC
From: Jordan
To: Dr. Cavin
Subject:
Dear Professor,
Regarding your e-mails, you shall
have to acquire your requests from Mr. Holtz. I presented his comments (on your
calculations) in their entirety. He referenced your calculations from your
earlier exchange with me. Apparently, he rejects them in favor of his,
purportedly demonstrating that a stolen-body-and-duped-disciples explanation is
more probable.
If you are comfortable that someone
else's scientific probabilities may reduce yours, relax. It harms my position
not at all.
Frankly, it seems to me that
scientific probabilities should not encounter challenges.
You are just as at liberty as the
rest of society to read the full context of my Holtz exchange at http://www.theism.net/authors/zjordan/debates_files/holtz.htm.
I trust this satisfies your needs.
e-mail: jordantheistDELETETHIS@bellsouth.net
Theism.net Options: home | articles | books | search | webmaster