Freethought & Rationalism Archive

noah · 10-25-2005, 04:44 AM

I was just over at
Apologetics and saw a thread (quoted below) by an apparent skeptic advising skeptics to avoid making the claim that JC never existed.
I agree with his main point that skeptics should not try to argue for Jc's non-existence per se. Rather they should stress repeatedly to Christians that there is no evidence for JC's existence. As the claimant the burden of proof rests with the Christian. He (or she) must prove that JC actually existed.

He also says skeptics, it seems, should accept that JC may well have existed because there were others like him at the time.
Well yes, and the reason we know there were others like him at the time is because , as he himself points out, is that we have reasonable proof of their existence. Apollonius of Tyana comes to mind a figure to whom JC is eerily similar.

He is right that there is no better explanantion for the emergence of Christianity than that a charismatic figure called JC actually existed. However, the best explanantion is not always the correct explanation and again it is up to the Christian to do more than speculate to a skeptic about JC's existence. I'm sure there are other possibilities for the emergence of Christianity. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me on this topic can take it from here.

Quote:

We skeptics, if we are not to be mere nay sayers, need to apply the principle that beliefs should be supported by evidence to our own beliefs as well as theists'. I'm reminded by another thread that we often fail to do that. The thread concerns whether Jesus actually existed.

Of all the arguments skeptics make none is more indefensible than the positive claim that Jesus never existed. No skeptic, employing the principles of methodological skepticism should ever make that argument, but some do and they do it a lot.

First the claim that Jesus never existed is an attempt to prove a negative, that a person named Jesus or something like that, didn't live in the 30s of the common era and become the basis of the stories in the Gospels and the even more fantastic later stories. Proving this negative is difficult at best because it is hard to see what sort of evidence could possibly prove that some guy didn't live in the Galilee nearly 2000 years ago. On principle skeptics should refrain from making claims for which no evidence is possible. The most a skeptic is warranted to say in the absence of evidence is "I really don't know"

Secondly, there is nothing implausible about the proposition that the Gospel stories are based on some real live guy who went around preaching, had a following, healed some folks and got himself crucified. History tells us that the Roman occupied territories were full of itinerent preachers, would be Messiahs, and sadly crucifixion victims. Therefore there is no reason for a skeptic to doubt a priori that a guy like Jesus might have existed. In fact we know that guys like Jesus did exist and the time and place and we even know some of their names.

Third, there is no better explanation for the advent of the Jesus movement in the first century C.E. than the existence of a charismatic figure like Jesus. His existence is adequate to explain why the movement started where it did and when it did as recorded in secular history. We know of other religious leaders, and although wwe can't always know why we know that sometimes their movements flourish. Why not Jesus'?

Forth the argument made against the historicity of Jesus should offend all reasonable skeptics. In whatever form it takes. it boils down to the claim that Christianity could have began without an historical Jesus, therefore it did. Just stating the argument refutes it. There are a lot of things that could happen that don't. It confuses the possible with the real, a mistake often made by out theisic friends. In matters of ancient history we are dealing with probabilities. The probability that a real Jesus inspired the movement on one hand, or that a confluence of historical antecedents and conspiracies on the other hand did. I don't see how and honest skeptic can opt for the latter.

NZSkep · 10-25-2005, 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

I was just over at
Apologetics and saw a thread (quoted below) by an apparent skeptic advising skeptics to avoid making the claim that JC never existed.
I agree with his main point that skeptics should not try to argue for Jc's non-existence per se. Rather they should stress repeatedly to Christians that there is no evidence for JC's existence. As the claimant the burden of proof rests with the Christian. He (or she) must prove that JC actually existed.

He also says skeptics, it seems, should accept that JC may well have existed because there were others like him at the time.
Well yes, and the reason we know there were others like him at the time is because , as he himself points out, is that we have reasonable proof of their existence. Apollonius of Tyana comes to mind a figure to whom JC is eerily similar.

He is right that there is no better explanantion for the emergence of Christianity than that a charismatic figure called JC actually existed. However, the best explanantion is not always the correct explanation and again it is up to the Christian to do more than speculate to a skeptic about JC's existence. I'm sure there are other possibilities for the emergence of Christianity. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me on this topic can take it from here.

I don't think most skeptics have an issue wit the existence of some guy called jesus in the 0030's, who claimed to be 'the messiah'. There were probably dozens of those guys around - it being a popular name and all that.

What they do have a problem with is attributing 'miracles' to him - walking on water, water to wine, feeding 5000 etc. When you compare the miracle making version of jesus to other historical figures, ther is a real lack of evidence.
Now, I know absence of evidence is not evidence of absenmce, but it can be when we shoukld expect to see evidence. No other group at that time recorded the existence of this specific jesus performing miracles. he was supposed to have thousands of followers, as wel as enemies - which brings me onto rome.

Romans were renowned for their relative historical accuracy (they also recorded defeats btw - see teutoberg forest(sp?)) and yet no mention of this jesus character who performed miracles is mentioned untill hundreds of years later. why?

Compared with, say, julius ceaser (a common choice by christians) we have mountains of evidence; personal diaries, minted coins, contemporary busts, statues, contemporary historical documents from his enemies etc etc. if the jesus character as depicted in the bible actually existed then why is there such a lack of evidence - considering he is supposed to be the most important historical character ever.

Vorkosigan · 10-25-2005, 06:07 AM

It's a bad strategy because it is offputting. You can introduce that one later in the game...

Toto · 10-25-2005, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noah

. . .
He is right that there is no better explanantion for the emergence of Christianity than that a charismatic figure called JC actually existed. . . . .

This is where I would disagree. I think that Earl Doherty has shown that there is a better explanation of the origins of Christianity, and Richard Carrier agrees. And it is hard to argue that there is a relationship between a supposedly charismatic preacher in the early first century and the growth of Christianity in the late 2nd and 3rd centuries, especially when so many Protestants claim that the early disciples misunderstood Jesus' words.

I would agree that this argument is too complex for some situations. But it is important to keep it in mind. Organizations like Campus Crusade for Christ recruit people starting with the assertion that "historians agree that there is a lot of evidence for Jesus' existence" and go on from there. If your aim is to counter their recruitment to their cult, you need to know that historians do not all agree on that, and that the evidence for Jesus' existence is so weak that no historian has successfully rebutted the mythicist hypothesis.

Julian · 10-25-2005, 12:58 PM

I agree with Toto, and would add that the emergence of christianity from a single source is not a good explanation in the light of the fact that christianity seems to have been a very fractured affair right out of the gate.

Julian

Marxist · 10-25-2005, 02:24 PM

Beside the fact that this guy's arguments have been delt with before, I don't even see the question in terms of atheism vs. Christianity. I am interested in the question of the historicity of Jesus on its own terms, not as an argument against Christianity, so I don't give a crap how your average Christian reacts to it.

spin · 10-25-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

It's a bad strategy because it is offputting. You can introduce that one later in the game...

If you take it on yourself to try to help christians onto the straight and narrow road of reason, Vork is probably right. If you've been bombarded all your live-long that Jesus is and was real, then it doesn't come easy that someone says he isn't/wasn't. Rules of argument and logic don't work in the task you take on. You have to communicate via other means. Good luck.

spin

rlogan · 10-25-2005, 11:11 PM

Got to agree there.

I just came out of the woods to a house in the teeming metropolis of Healy, Alaska and met square with two Christians that were within ten minutes just foaming at the mouth, bug-eyed and veins popping out.

I had not expected such an entertaining reaction. Not productive. But some really nice fireworks.

spin · 10-26-2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Got to agree there.

I just came out of the woods to a house in the teeming metropolis of Healy, Alaska and met square with two Christians that were within ten minutes just foaming at the mouth, bug-eyed and veins popping out.

I had not expected such an entertaining reaction. Not productive. But some really nice fireworks.

My show stopper recently has always worked:

What separates you with your relationship with god from a schizophrenic who has a relationship with Napoleon or Crusty the Clown, or who ever? You can't see or do anything that directly gives you objective feedback that you are not talking to the same sort of thing that a schizophrenic does. Are you really off into some limited psychosis with this god stuff? That's usually enough to stop second occurrences of door-to-doors.

spin

Clivedurdle · 10-26-2005, 02:38 AM

Would a more subtle approach help - that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, that there are so many elements of myth here the probability is in fact myth and that everything (?) Jesus is alleged to have said had already been said by someone else.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-25-2005, 06:07 AM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	It's a bad strategy because it is offputting. You can introduce that one later in the game...

10-25-2005, 12:58 PM	#5
Julian Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Washington, DC (formerly Denmark) Posts: 3,789	I agree with Toto, and would add that the emergence of christianity from a single source is not a good explanation in the light of the fact that christianity seems to have been a very fractured affair right out of the gate. Julian

10-25-2005, 02:24 PM	#6
Marxist Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: US Posts: 301	Beside the fact that this guy's arguments have been delt with before, I don't even see the question in terms of atheism vs. Christianity. I am interested in the question of the historicity of Jesus on its own terms, not as an argument against Christianity, so I don't give a crap how your average Christian reacts to it.

10-25-2005, 11:11 PM	#8
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Got to agree there. I just came out of the woods to a house in the teeming metropolis of Healy, Alaska and met square with two Christians that were within ten minutes just foaming at the mouth, bug-eyed and veins popping out. I had not expected such an entertaining reaction. Not productive. But some really nice fireworks.

10-26-2005, 02:38 AM	#10
Clivedurdle Contributor Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: London UK Posts: 16,024	Would a more subtle approach help - that there is no evidence that Jesus existed, that there are so many elements of myth here the probability is in fact myth and that everything (?) Jesus is alleged to have said had already been said by someone else.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.