Tercel

I understood your comments the first time. Perhaps you need to more carefully read my response if you think I am misunderstanding anything here.

JC-mything is nothing new: Doherty is simply the latest in a long line of quacks stretching back to the 18th century or so. Why should Christians change their position now in response to mythicism?

From what I have read of his book and the arguments made by those who support his book, it appears his "well-reasoned case" consists of special pleading ad nauseum with the occasional example of how not to do an argument from silence. In general, Doherty's case seems about as well reasoned as the average US Government conspiracy theory. (Did you know the moon landing was really faked?)

It really is a pity so many atheists are getting sucked in by his work... I can only suppose his conclusions are so desirable that unconscious bias affects their better judgement.

I am not unfamiliar with Doherty's work, though I have not read it in its entirity - the idea of supporting cranks by buying their books doesn't appeal to me, and the idea of copious amounts of text on a computer screen not much better.
No doubt I'll eventually get round to writing a refutation of at least parts just so no poor fool is taken in by it, so I'll no doubt need to read it eventually... but it's not on my to-do list.

lpetrich

I'm not going to try to untangle that logical knot, but do you really think that I am a "complete skeptic"?

lpetrich

Depends on what you consider Christianity, O ManM. And what you mean by "denial of Jesus".

One important group of early Christians, the Gnostics, had believed that Jesus Christ had not been a historical person at all, but a purely spiritual being; this view is completely compatible with JC-mythicism.

lpetrich

WHAT special pleading?

And how is his work an object lesson in how not to construct an argument from silence?

I think that it is a strong one. The Gospels have been a favorite subject in Christianity for most of its history, so why don't the epistle writers make lots of allusions to them?

Especially when the Gospels would support the points that they are trying to make, like Jesus Christ raising people from the dead.

Vorkosigan

ManM, I should point out that Barna.org frequently polls on this very topic. If you run to their site, and search resurrection, a bunch of stuff will pop up.

"Among the most surprising outcomes were the proportions of born again adults who agreed that the Bible teaches that God helps those who help themselves (68%); that the Holy Spirit does not exist (53%); that Satan does not exist (47%); that a good person can earn his/her way into heaven (31%); that Jesus Christ died but never had a physical resurrection (30%); and that Jesus Christ committed sins (24%)."

30% of BORN-AGAINS believe Jesus did not physically resurrect. Yet the Church soldiers on.

Barna is a fascinating guide to US religious beliefs, BTW. It's lots of fun to troll around their site and read it.

Here is their data from the Church Lay Leaders Poll:

"The survey data do underscore, however, a tremendous diversity of beliefs among church leaders - including some beliefs that are antithetical to biblical principles. Among the beliefs held by lay leaders that conflict with biblical teaching are the following:

• a majority 58% said the Bible teaches that "God helps those who help themselves"
• four out of every ten (39%) believe there is no such thing as Satan
• four out of every ten (43%) believe there is no such thing as the Holy Spirit
• one-third (33%) asserted that Jesus Christ never had a physical resurrection
• one out of every four (25%) agreed that it doesn't matter what faith you follow because all faith groups teach the same lessons
• one out of every five (22%) agreed that all people will experience the same outcomes after death, regardless of their religious beliefs
• one out of every five (20%) said there are some sins a person can commit that cannot be forgiven
• one out of every five (19%) believe that Jesus Christ committed sins when He was on earth.

Obviously, Christianity can survive with a wide variety of beliefs.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich

I checked out that Barna site, and it had the headline
Why are families supposed to do everything? And why is morality supposed to be the result of explicit preaching? I think that there are other possibilities: learned habit and instinct.

Learned habit would mean learning such things as not to displease others. It is possible to learn the wrong lessions, such as the important thing being to not get caught.

Instinct is a much more murky subject, but there are hints that there is some "moral instinct", such as association of damage to the brain's prefrontal lobe and the antisocial personality disorder, for example, <a href="http://www.rense.com/general21/vio.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rense.com/general21/vio.htm</a>

And here's something fun about Enron's CEO Kenneth Lay: his father had been a Baptist minister. So why had Mr. Lay misbehaved so seriously???

Bede

This is not really true. Some gnostics believed Jesus was a spiritual being but one who came to earth and everyone thought was a person. They did not deny that this spiritual being walked and talked and did everything the historical Jesus was supposed to do.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

lpetrich

Back to the main subject, it would be interesting to see what non-Fundie Christians think about the JC-myth hypothesis.

As to other religions, Muslims might have trouble with the JC-myth hypothesis, since Islam recognizes JC as one of Mohammed's prophet predecessors. However, Muslims believe that what comes down to us about those predecessors has been corrupted by later generations of scribes and interpreters, though of course they believe that the Koran has been perfectly preserved. Meaning that New Testament errancy would be old hat to them.

Aside from that, the main effect might be to suggest similar skepticism about the existence of the religions' founders and prophets and heroes.

And if the response of several Internet Infidels is any indication, then most skeptics and freethinkers would not be seriously troubled about the JC-myth hypothesis.

ManM

Vorkosigan,
I think one problem is that we have very different views of Christianity to begin with. Still, what meaning would you see contained in a mythical Christianity that is not already in historical Christianity?

Regarding the survey, how many Christian doctrines does one have to deny before you wonder if they are Christian? If an atheist came to II and mentioned a belief in God, we would not consider them an atheist. But if a Christian denies the resurrection, surely we cannot consider them to be other than a Christian... <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

echidna,
I am using the Nicene creed as a baseline for Christian belief. "Who, for us and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, and was made man; and was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate; He suffered and was buried; and the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures; and ascended into heaven, and sits on the right hand of the Father; and He shall come again, with glory, to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." If you remove this, don't you also have to remove the belief in a real afterlife? How many traditional Christian doctrines should one be able to deny before you can say they are no longer a Christian? I'll ask you as well: what meaning would a mythical Christianity have that is not already contained in historical Christianity?

lpetrich,
The Gnostics were considered heretics for good reason: their theology did not make sense. This is the same argument I'm making against the JC-myth hypothesis. It doesn't make any sense.

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan,
I think one problem is that we have very different views of Christianity to begin with. Still, what meaning would you see contained in a mythical Christianity that is not already in historical Christianity?

A good question. Well, it would be largely political, in my view. Apostolic sucession would vanish, for instance. No Church could claim to be the true church based on some historical ground. Perhaps much of the nasty authoritarianism of Christianity would go by the board.

But you can see that large numbers of Christians maintain unorthodox views, yet Christianity somehow survives. It's extremely robust.

Regarding the survey, how many Christian doctrines does one have to deny before you wonder if they are Christian? If an atheist came to II and mentioned a belief in God, we would not consider them an atheist. But if a Christian denies the resurrection, surely we cannot consider them to be other than a Christian..

I can see what you are talking about, but the problem is that this is like a third of believers in the most religious country in the world you're talking about excluding. "Atheist" and "Christian" are not words that function at the same level of meaning. "Christian" is much bigger and looser. Is a Christian anyone who reverences Jesus? Assumes he is divine? Does the resurrection have to be historical? Obviously, for a great many people who reverence Jesus and the Church and its doctrines, that is not the case. I can't help you define what a "Christian" is, like pornography, I know it when I see it.


The Gnostics were considered heretics for good reason: their theology did not make sense. This is the same argument I'm making against the JC-myth hypothesis. It doesn't make any sense.

ManM, it isn't much of an argument either way. No theology "makes sense" because the fundamental axioms are so irrational. As for the JC-myth, it makes a great deal of sense to say that the gospels are largely legend with little if any history.

Vorkosigan