Freethought & Rationalism Archive

squiz · 02-08-2010, 04:24 AM

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...rstanding.html

squiz · 02-08-2010, 04:56 AM

It is actually a reference to Neil Godrey's blog, in which there is a lengthier discussion:

http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/02/...city-of-jesus/

maryhelena · 02-08-2010, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squiz

http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...rstanding.html

Thanks for that link, squiz

So, its Neil's blog post that has got his attention....well, and good - and what does McGrath end up saying....

Quote:

Historians are confident Jesus existed, first and foremost, because we have sayings attributed to him and stories about him that are more likely authentic than inauthentic. We have enough such material to place the matter beyond reasonable doubt in the minds of most experts in the field. And in order to deny that Jesus existed, one has to posit conspiracies and misunderstandings which, if one is willing to entertain such scenarios, could effectively be used to deny the existence of just about anyone in history. And even in the case of the most plausible mythicist scenario (not that they ever take the time to make a positive case for how the myth was invented and how it came to be misunderstood so quickly as being about a historical figure) we never get a scenario that is more probable than one that regards there as having been a real historical figure Jesus, however much he may have been obscured by later developments and dogmas.

If only he would drop the 'Jesus' word - and concentrate on the rest of what he is saying - that the 'sayings' can most probably be attributed to a historical figure - but the jump from that historical figure to the Jesus figure is just too big and too wide a jump - it's a jump that needs a magic carpet ride.....

dog-on · 02-08-2010, 05:57 AM

Weak

Ktotwf · 02-08-2010, 06:14 AM

Did that just seem like a bunch of assertions to anyone else?

maryhelena · 02-08-2010, 06:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktotwf

Did that just seem like a bunch of assertions to anyone else?

Indeed, and McGrath is still marking assertions over on Neil's blog - which presently stands at 87 responses...

ApostateAbe · 02-08-2010, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ktotwf

Did that just seem like a bunch of assertions to anyone else?

It is a bunch of assertions, and all of the assertions seem obvious to me since I have plenty of experience in the debate, but I wish he would take a little more time to demonstrate the truth of those assertions. The point that, "...we never get a scenario that is more probable than one that regards there as having been a real historical figure Jesus, however much he may have been obscured by later developments and dogmas." He was the one who emphasized "more probable," and it is refreshing, because it is a reflection of what I have been arguing all of the time. I wish MJ-advocates would be arguing in terms of probability, not just possibility. Anyone can prove that anything is possible. The HJ-advocates very much seem to have probability on their side. Some who are argue against HJ, in the process, claim that probability estimates are useless, which I think is alarming. I see the same pattern in all other unlikely fringe theories.

Rick Sumner · 02-08-2010, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Civil1z@tion

But aren't you simply assuming that because something is a myth there can be no elements of fact to it? Take Herodotus' History. It involves a lot of mythological stories (like the story of a man who rode a dolphin to Corinth) but there is a core of facts in there that are probably relatively accurate.

I actually used to use Herodotus the same way (and actually owed it to an analogy made by Allison in the premier issue of the JSHJ). And never really came upon a decent response to the analogy (you can search the forums and see where I've used it). Herodotus is one of those figures that everybody has heard of, but few really engage, so he seems good on first blush, and you don't run across many people who can really tell you if it works or not.

So instead I happened upon the response myself. The short answer is that it doesn't work. The longer answer is that historians don't take much of anything Herodotus says at face value without corroboration.

The father of history was a very bad historian. The reason, for example, you find the beautifully written, edifying piece about Solon and Croesus (despite the fact that they lived decades apart), is that Herodotus didn't particularly care if it was true or not. Accuracy wasn't the point.

show_no_mercy · 02-08-2010, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Historians are confident [Socrates] existed, first and foremost, because we have sayings attributed to him and stories about him that are more likely authentic than inauthentic. We have enough such material to place the matter beyond reasonable doubt in the minds of most experts in the field. And in order to deny that [Socrates] existed, one has to posit conspiracies and misunderstandings which, if one is willing to entertain such scenarios, could effectively be used to deny the existence of just about anyone in history. And even in the case of the most plausible mythicist scenario (not that they ever take the time to make a positive case for how the myth was invented and how it came to be misunderstood so quickly as being about a historical figure) we never get a scenario that is more probable than one that regards there as having been a real historical figure [Socrates], however much he may have been obscured by later developments and dogmas

Does questioning the existence of Socrates rain down as much instant dismissal?

ApostateAbe · 02-08-2010, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Historians are confident [Socrates] existed, first and foremost, because we have sayings attributed to him and stories about him that are more likely authentic than inauthentic. We have enough such material to place the matter beyond reasonable doubt in the minds of most experts in the field. And in order to deny that [Socrates] existed, one has to posit conspiracies and misunderstandings which, if one is willing to entertain such scenarios, could effectively be used to deny the existence of just about anyone in history. And even in the case of the most plausible mythicist scenario (not that they ever take the time to make a positive case for how the myth was invented and how it came to be misunderstood so quickly as being about a historical figure) we never get a scenario that is more probable than one that regards there as having been a real historical figure [Socrates], however much he may have been obscured by later developments and dogmas

Does questioning the existence of Socrates rain down as much instant dismissal?

It hasn't happened yet, but I imagine that a group of skeptics who argue against a historical Socrates would get roughly the same treatment from those who study the subject for a living.

02-08-2010, 04:24 AM	#1
squiz Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Munich Germany Posts: 434	Blog entry on mythicism by James McGrath http://exploringourmatrix.blogspot.c...rstanding.html

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

02-08-2010, 04:56 AM	#2
squiz Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Munich Germany Posts: 434	It is actually a reference to Neil Godrey's blog, in which there is a lengthier discussion: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2010/02/...city-of-jesus/

02-08-2010, 05:57 AM	#4
dog-on Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 3,397	Weak

02-08-2010, 06:14 AM	#5
Ktotwf Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Indiana Posts: 2,936	Did that just seem like a bunch of assertions to anyone else?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.