Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Sheshbazzar · 03-30-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Hmmm, well yes, I do still maintain that most American scholars would be likely to go along with the popular opinion that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole.
After all it is all only a fable, nothing to excommunicate or burn the heretics over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zeichman

Good God, man. What century are you living in? Seriously, read a damn book on the topic. You're wrong. It's as simple as that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

You have a book on the topic of where Santa Claus lives?
My grandchildren have several, which I have read to them.

Were they written by scholars? If not, then you're just talking out your ass.

Do YOU have, or know of any "damn book on the topic" of "WHERE SANTA CLAUS LIVES", that was written by scholars? (one that you approve of)

Please provide us with the Title, and the name of the author of this scholarly tome, so that we may learn of the contents, and of the evidence supporting the conclusions in this scholarly "damn book".
It certainly would be helpful to be able to cite chapter, page, and paragraph from such a scholarly and authoritative source on the proper location of Santa Claus's home.
Such a "damn book" would be great to have at hand for reference in future discussions such as this one.

Jeffrey Gibson · 03-30-2008, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrZoidberg

What about this theory. Jesus actually lived. Did some of the stuff in the Bible. Some was added, and all of it was embroided. Like everything else in history.

On what is your theory based? What stuff did Jesus do? For such a theory to have any significance, one must find some source external to apologetics that place Jesus of Nazareth in the first century. No such external non-apologetic source can be found up to now.

Why do you think it is the case, as you claim it is, that by virtue of their genre, their function, and their intent, Apologia and "apologetic literature" from the ancient world are worthless as evidence for the historicity, and as sources for the life, and teaching, and "ministry", of the figure whose teaching, actions, reputation, and ministry they are intent to defend?

Classical scholars do not think so -- as is evident in their use of various Apologia from the ancient world to reconstruct the life and teaching and career/ministry of the figures that are defended within these works when there is no "external non-apologetic source" for that figure, or for the aspects of the life and teaching and career of that figure that the apologetic sources deal with.

So what is it that you know about ancient apologetic works and the genre of Apologia that classical scholars and professional historians don't that allows you to be as certain as you evidently are certain about the worthlessness of "apologetic" sources both as evidence for the historicity, and as source for the teaching and career and biography, of the figure such literature speaks about?

I note with interest that despite my asking these questions before, you've ignored/dodged them altogether. May we now/finally have your answer -- which I hope will be a straight one -- to them?

Jeffrey

J-D · 03-30-2008, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I refer you to my first response on this thread.

And here it is:

Could be.

Blatant tripe. Consensuses are often discussed here. You mightn't like the discussion, but your proposition is false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

because there are people here so committed to their own positions that they will deny the existence of any such consensus if it conflicts with their own views.

Nastily worded invective aimed at branding all discussion here because of some indeterminate number of people whose views you don't like.

There is no problem knowing and discussing consensus opinions, but opinions are only ever opinions (no matter whose they are) and are no substitute for evidence, so argument based on consensus opinion is no argument whatsoever.

spin

You're absolutely right about expert consensuses being discussed here.

But every time they're discussed, invariably somebody denies that there is, in fact, any expert consensus.

Thus, for example, despite reading discussion here, I still can't figure out whether there actually is any expert consensus or not.

Can you?

J-D · 03-30-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Is there? I don't think so.

Really? in an uncoached opinion poll, what answer do you think people would most likely give when presented with this this simple question?

Where does Santa Claus live?

Yes, there might be some diversity of opinions and answers, so lets still have an uncoached audience, only see what happens when there is a significant reward at stake.

So lets up the ante a bit.
We have Mr Scholar as a guest on a cash prize game show, with the top prize being THREE MILLION DOLLARS, and the providing of a "wrong" answer eliminates that contestant.

[Introductory applause]
(MC)Are we ready? [audience applause] For our next contestant, we have here with us Mr. Rhodes Scholar. Nice to have you here with us today Mr Scholar, are you ready? [applause]

OK, Here we go folks, question number one for one hundred dollars IS,

"Where does Santa Claus Live?"

a. Ooompa Loompa Land
b. The Vatican
c. The North Pole
d. none of the above

All right, I see that our studio audience has now locked in their votes.
Now Mr Scholar, on your way to THREE MILLION DOLLARS, Your answer IS?

No, I'm not going to answer for Mr Scholar, but do believe that the audience is quite unanimous in their answer.
And I am quite confident of which answer most scholars would give under these circumstances, regardless of your "I don't think so".

You said that there was 'a consensus of agreement among well known and academically credentialed scholars that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole'. That was the statement I was disputing.

You didn't say that there is 'a consensus of agreement among well known and academically credentialled scholars that most people think that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole'.

Maybe what you said was not what you meant to say.

But what you actually said was not true.

If you still want to argue that it's true, you could start by telling who some of these well-known and academically credentialled scholars you're talking about are.

Solitary Man · 03-30-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Hmmm, well yes, I do still maintain that most American scholars would be likely to go along with the popular opinion that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole.
After all it is all only a fable, nothing to excommunicate or burn the heretics over.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Were they written by scholars? If not, then you're just talking out your ass.

Do YOU have, or know of any "damn book on the topic" of "WHERE SANTA CLAUS LIVES", that was written by scholars? (one that you approve of)

Please provide us with the Title, and the name of the author of this scholarly tome, so that we may learn of the contents, and of the evidence supporting the conclusions in this scholarly "damn book".
It certainly would be helpful to be able to cite chapter, page, and paragraph from such a scholarly and authoritative source on the proper location of Santa Claus's home.
Such a "damn book" would be great to have at hand for reference in future discussions such as this one.

Jones, Charles W. Saint Nicholas of Myra, Bari, and Manhattan: Biography of a Legend (or via: amazon.co.uk) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1978.

J-D · 03-30-2008, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Nobody gets killed for saying there isn't any Santa Claus.

People are killed every day for even less.

Possibly. That dosn't change the fact that nobody gets killed for saying that there isn't any Santa Claus.

If you want to maintain your original contention, perhaps you could name a few of the people who have been killed for saying that there isn't any Santa Claus?

J-D · 03-30-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spamandham

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Ask those same people if they believe that Santa Claus exists and your little theory becomes painfully obvious how stupid it is.

...as I understood what he was saying, the point was that scholars would tell you Santa lives at the North poll, and I agree with him, because the question is 'where does Santa live', not 'does Santa exist'.

The first question is answered by textual analysis independent of whether or not Santa actually existed. The same would apply to Tom Sawyer, if you asked scholars 'what river did Tom Sawyer float down', they would answer 'the Mississippi'.

...and the same thing happens when you ask 'What was Jesus' profession'. Only a small fraction of scholars have even attempted to address the question of whether or not Jesus actually existed.

If Sheshbazzar's argument was intended to be as you suggest, then it demonstrates nothing to the point. Sheshbazzar was attempting to throw doubt on the value of expert consensus. On your interpretation, however, the expert consensus is correct.

J-D · 03-30-2008, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshbazzar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Ask those same people if they believe that Santa Claus exists and your little theory becomes painfully obvious how stupid it is.

But that was not the question that was posed, was it Man?
Not whether they Santa Claus exists, or even whether Jesus exist(ed).

What is being discussed in this thread is IF, or whether there is any scholarly "Consensus on Jesus".

It is evident, that unlike that simple Santa's Home Address question, that when we inquire of various scholars and "experts" concerning their opinions on the accuracy and historicity of the Gospels, and on how accurately these writings portray any actual Jesus figure, their answers range all over the place, and like the weather, are constantly undergoing shift and change.

Thus in this thread, claims of any "consensus" of scholarly opinion come off as being quite bogus, hence my originally tongue-in-cheek observation about a scholarly consensus of where Santa Claus calls home.
Certainly on a lot of Biblical/Historical questions we can elicit a short off the cuff reply, that might be mistaken as a "consensus".
However, just as it is with questions about Santa, when things get serious, so it is with questions about Jesus.
These same scholars who would almost all certainly reply Santa lives at "The North Pole", would also deny any literal beliefe in that statement.

So also with the subject of Jesus. Ask by what means was Jesus put to death, and you will likely receive a "consensus" answer of, "by Crucifixion" even from most of those scholars who are convinced that the entire story is fiction.
Such a "consensus" is merely a concession to popular opinion, and not at all reflective of scholars real opinions.

I refer you to my first post to this thread.

Toto · 03-30-2008, 04:02 PM

A consensus of experts is often a valuable piece of information. It indicates that intelligent people have taken independent looks at the evidence and have reached conclusions, then checked their conclusions against their fellow experts to eliminate mistakes and biases. An intelligent expert person can be mistaken for a variety of reasons, and the consensus is meant to eliminate that source of error.

For the consensus to be meaningful, you have to have a number of independent and unbiased experts, with an agreed upon methodology, for discovering the truth, and professional standards.

Where you don't have these preconditions, you may have agreement among experts, but the agreement might be better characterized as "the conventional wisdom" or "group think."

The problem here is that Christian apologists are in the habit of constructing arguments by claiming a consensus of experts on some issue that they can't actually prove, such as the existence of an empty tomb, or the existence of a historical Jesus. It gets tiresome after a while.

I don't think that there is a consensus on the question of Jesus. There is just a lot of group thinking, wishful thinking, and conventional wisdom.

J-D · 03-30-2008, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

I refer you to my first response on this thread.

Yes, you focused early on an ignorant minority position. That was my point in providing the more informed objection to the general consensus.

'Informed'? What information would that be?

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

03-30-2008, 04:02 PM	#119
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	A consensus of experts is often a valuable piece of information. It indicates that intelligent people have taken independent looks at the evidence and have reached conclusions, then checked their conclusions against their fellow experts to eliminate mistakes and biases. An intelligent expert person can be mistaken for a variety of reasons, and the consensus is meant to eliminate that source of error. For the consensus to be meaningful, you have to have a number of independent and unbiased experts, with an agreed upon methodology, for discovering the truth, and professional standards. Where you don't have these preconditions, you may have agreement among experts, but the agreement might be better characterized as "the conventional wisdom" or "group think." The problem here is that Christian apologists are in the habit of constructing arguments by claiming a consensus of experts on some issue that they can't actually prove, such as the existence of an empty tomb, or the existence of a historical Jesus. It gets tiresome after a while. I don't think that there is a consensus on the question of Jesus. There is just a lot of group thinking, wishful thinking, and conventional wisdom.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.