Toto

Creationists and other fringe scientists are not exactly honest when they account for why their views are rejected by the mainstream. The real reason is that their views are stupid.

But they do know that there have been times when the mainstream has been wrong, and they try to pretend that they are just presenting an idea whose value has not yet been recognized by a stuffy establishment - like plate tectonics was at one point, or the germ theory of disease.

So if these arguments sound like creationist's excuses, that means nothing. Sometimes there is institutional resistance to new ideas and new paradigms. We can only hope that in the long run the better theory will prevail.

Just remember that sometimes the crank turns out to be right.

Jeffrey Gibson

The issue isn't whether their explanations for why they are not given credence are honest (the one I noted is obviously rank ad hominem, and therefore essentialy dishonest).

It's whether the explanation that RT gave for why AS's views are not given credence is essentially the same as the particular one I noted and documented that creationists and flat earthers have given for why their views are not accepted in the academy.

I'd be grateful if you'd deal with that issue rather than one I did not raise when you are attempting to correct or instruct me.

Jeffrey

Robert Tulip

Just amusing.Hi Jeff. Not sure if outhouse has responded on this, but you might like to check wikipedia, despite your inherent distrust of it. Rodney Stark's page includes the following:
For any creationists reading along, get in quick and you can censor this wiki. Jeffrey's positive reference to Stark really helps me understand where he is coming from. Far be it from me though to use Stark's apparent opposition to teaching of Darwinism as an ad hominem critique of his views on Christian history, or of Jeffrey's scholarship on Isis.

Chili

Who me? Intelligent Design built inside the species? I gave the metaphysics for in detail but that will never fly there.

The Church knows but they are not going to give their secret away.

Bible creationism is right but not in the literal sense.

Robert Tulip

Creationism per se is not on topic, but the comparison between astrotheology and creationism is relevant to understanding differing views on the relation between Isis and Mary. Astrotheology is scientific, creationism is cranky. Astrotheology understands Isis and Mary as connected, creationism sees Isis as an imaginary devil and Mary as a real miraculous icon. There is quite a difference.

I responded already on Jeffrey's information about cranks, noting that Thomas Brodie was recently expelled from his Catholic teaching position for publishing his book Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: Memoir of a Discovery. This does not make Brodie a crank, but it does put him in somewhat the same position as Acharya, forced to do his research in isolation. Brodie's case illustrates how mythicism is suppressed, which was my point.

To say Acharya's work is suppressed and therefore she is a crank is a fallacious form of argument. Bringing crankery into the debate on Isis is irrelevant in view of the fact that mythicism is discussed extensively on the internet but almost never in the mainstream media or universities, as far as I can tell. Anyone who researches mythicism will be cast into the outer darkness as far as the academy is concerned, as the views of Hoffmann and Ehrman illustrate. Astrotheology is a highly contentious strand within mythicism, so is doubly ignored.

There are numerous cranky opinions out there about Isis in view of her association with magic, but these should not concern us here. Acharya's analysis of Isis and Mary is sound scholarship based on real evidence and coherent logic. Recognition of the intimate continuity between Isis and Mary just sits badly against the cultural ascendancy of views that find natural cosmic interpretation of old religion uncongenial.

Jeffrey Gibson

Apparent opposition is the operative word here. Sorry. But I don't see that he says here that Darwinism, let alone that evolution, should not be taught in schools. Nor do I see that he is advocating that creationism should be.

And there is nothing in the Wiki article that speaks to whether his views on how and why Christianity succeeded are suspect. Nor did I say anything positive about Stark's views on the matter.

So far as I can see, all I did was ask whether a poster here who was making claims about why Christianity succeeded was aware of, and had taken into account , what Stark had written on the matter and whether this poster's judgement about Stark's views of why Christianity succeeded were informed by direct acquaintance with Stark's writings.


So once again we have a misrepresentation of the "facts" to suit an agenda.

Jeffrey

Jeffrey Gibson

I agree. But if you are attributing this argument to me, I'd be grateful if you'd show me exactly where I said any such thing.

Jeffrey

Toto

But that is the issue. In the creationists' case, their argument is dishonest.

Does that mean that anyone who uses a similar sounding argument is dishonest and a crank? Obviously not. There have been documented cases of views that have not been accepted by the academy for non-scientific reasons. Check out Semmelweiss, who was a genuine crank but also was right, and think about the women who died in childbirth because the medical establishment of the day refused to adopt his insight and wash their hands. Luckily, no one is likely to die for failing to realize the truth or falsity of astrotheology.

This is all peripheral to the real issues here. If you want to attack Acharya S for being wrong, you have to say why she is wrong, not rely on a superficial similarity to someone else's arguments.

Jeffrey Gibson

It would be if the subject at hand was the validity of the arguments that creationists and hollow earthers use to support their claims about the age and nature of the earth.

But that is not what I am talking about.

I'm speaking of something entirely different -- whether there is a resemblance between (a) the (fallacious) explanation RT gives for why the academy doesn't countenance astrotheology (closed mindedness and fear of job loss) and (b) the (fallcious) explanation that Morris and Gardner give for why the academy doesn't give their views much creedence (closed mindedness and fear of job loss).

I am at a loss to understand why you don't see this, let alone that you don't see that the explanations are essentially of a piece.

Jeffrey

Toto

I see what you are trying to do. I reject it as a valid approach.

The real issue is the validity of the arguments for astrotheology, in this case. The argument is made that if there were any validity, the community of scholars would recognize it, and the response is that they don't because they are close minded and/or would lose their jobs or their professional status if they did.

But this has nothing to do with the underlying validity of astrotheology or whatever theory is in disfavor. That has to be established by other arguments.

The comparison with creationism or hollow earthism is just an inflammatory distraction from the real issues of concern to this forum.

I will try to split this thread to get it back on topic.