How would we know? By evaluating Meier's arguments, the evidence, and giving it some thought. Isn't that what skeptics pride themselves on doing? Or is it easier to employ a little religious bigotry and say he's a Catholic and therefore can't be trusted?

The man has a trackrecord. Why are his destractors so reluctant to scour it to find specific examples of bias?

I can understand taking someone's background into account, but certainly not outright dismissing them because of it. In this case, J.P. Meier has arrived at conclusions which are the exact opposite of very important theological beliefs of his church. Shouldn't that be taken as some indication of his attempt to be objective?

As for Nomad's statement, I agree that perfect objectivity may not be possible. That does not, however, render the attempt at being as objective as possible useless. It is a laudable goal for historians and scientists to strive for. The fact that it may not be possible to perfectly achieve objectivity does not render its pursuant unimportant.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Layman:
You claimed that "he does not write as one attempting to be an objective historian." But he clearly informs us as to what he is attempting to do, which is to write as an objective historian. You may think that he fails, but that has nothing to do with what he is attempting to do.

You make a valid point here. I stand corrected.

Layman: Of course, if you think he fails to be objective, I would like to see specific points, rather than broad brush strokes, upon which you believe that he demonstrates bias.

Yes, I think his discussion of certain specific issues do lack a high degree of objectivity. To be totally honest, I have not finished reading the book. Give me a day or so to complete my reading, and I will focus on "specific points." Fair enough?

rodahi

Lance

I would agree here that total objectivity is impossible but I would contend it is harder from a theistic side than an atheistic side.

Without trying to offend, Christianity fits the definition of a cult, particularly as put forth in the "Kingdom of the Cults". And anything that goes against the cult's teaching is automatically discarded or ruled "wrong".

This is why it is so difficult for a theist to have any kind of objective world view. Because they will try any possible argument to support the dogma ahead of facts.

Most atheists, and I include myself in this number, would be willing to look at evidence for a God. But to sustain such an extraordinary claim, you need something more than "nature". Or 2000 year old myths that can be substanciated. So I would contend my objectivity might be just a little more than a theist scholar.

Because we all know that theist comes ahead of scholar at all times in priority.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Bede:
rodahi is simply rehashing the line that only atheists can be trusted to tell the truth as only they can be objective.

This is a misrepresentation of what I said. I think there are degrees of objectivity. I also think historians are more objective than theologians. Please point out where I used the word "atheist."

Bede: This is just silly and his quotation out of contest from Meier is an excellent example of an atheist twisting meaning, miscontruing and generally trying to be one sided who is every bit as bad as a fundementalist apologist.

And your statement is just silly, Bede.

We are all biased, me, Meier, Nomad and Richard Carrier.

Yes, we are all biased, but some are more biased than others.

Bede: We all try to put our biases to one side, doff different hats and reach an objective truth.

What "objective truth" are you trying to reach, Bede?

Bede: But rodahi gives the impression that he falls back on the old formula, objective = agrees with me. This is rather childish.

And your comment is rather childish, Bede.

rodahi

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rodahi:

Quote:

Originally posted by Layman: You claimed that "he does not write as one attempting to be an objective historian." But he clearly informs us as to what he is attempting to do, which is to write as an objective historian. You may think that he fails, but that has nothing to do with what he is attempting to do. You make a valid point here. I stand corrected. Layman: Of course, if you think he fails to be objective, I would like to see specific points, rather than broad brush strokes, upon which you believe that he demonstrates bias. Yes, I think his discussion of certain specific issues do lack a high degree of objectivity. To be totally honest, I have not finished reading the book. Give me a day or so to complete my reading, and I will focus on "specific points." Fair enough? rodahi

Take your time, I have plenty of work to keep my occupied.

But just to clarify. Are we going to discuss whether you disagree with Meier's conclusions or are we going to discuss specific examples of where Meier's bias affected his conclusions?

I consider the issues to be distinct.

[This message has been edited by Layman (edited April 25, 2001).]

Toto

That's cool. In the past you and Nomad have stated that anyone who contests the consensus of "experts" that Jesus was a real person and not a myth was in the same category as the flat earth society, and that we should all bow before expert authority (but only if the expert agrees with you.) Glad to know that there is room for discussion.

Did I ever say flat earth society? I believe that the analogy I drew was that Jesus-Mythers are like Young Earth Creationists.

I don't think trusting J.P. Meier is even relevant. If he's writing as a scholar, then his findings are either correct, incorrect, or outdated. If he's writing as a theologian, then it is all opinion (religion is easy, there are no facts), and still, trust really doesn't enter into it for me. I really don't care if he's a priest or a plumber... either the evidence backs him up or it doesn't.

Yup, life is really that simple for me. My daughter hates it...

I think we could have a fruitful discussion with either issue, or both. It might be best to start with the latter issue and work our way into the former. Perhaps I can present someting specific as early as tomorrow.

rodahi

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Ish:
First of all, I completely agree with Layman and Bede.

No big surprise here.

Ish: Second, I believe that secularists can trust Meier! The real question is: Can secularists agree with Meier's conclusions?

Good point. The more I read of Meier, the more I would tend to agree with you.

Ish: Meier's scholarship is superb. Rodahi is entitled to his opinion as I am quite opinionated about Morton Smith (which he doesn't like).

Indeed. I have never questioned Meier's scholarship. To my knowledge, very few of Morton Smith's peers question(ed) his scholarship.

Ish: However, Rodahi has taken one quote from Meier's book and ignored Meier's main stance when dealing with the historical Jesus.

This is, to an extent, correct; however, I think the quote represents Meier's fundamental view of Jesus. No matter how hard he may try to be objective, I think that SOMETIMES his "faith-knowledge" view influences his conclusions. When I finish reading A Marginal Jew, Vol. I, I will address this issue.

Ish: I challenge everyone to read the beginning of Meier's book where he addresses his Christianity and how he attempts to distinguish the Jesus of history from the Jesus of faith in order to come the the most unbiased conclusions possible.

I agree that he ATTEMPTS to be objective.

Ish: The most respectable scholars, in my opinion, will address their biases head-on in the opening of their work, whether religious or non-religous. Consider this when reading a scholar's book.

As I have stated several times now, all scholars have their biases, but some are more biased than others.

Ish: As Rodahi is fond of saying: Read the book!

Good point.

rodahi