Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 05-07-2012, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

An argument from personal incredulity?

No. An argument from "baseless accusation".

Read on

Quote:

Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman has specifically stated that his recent book was not written for scholars.

Quote:

It's not there. There is one scholar, Bart Ehrman, who has just written what he calls a popular book, Did Jesus Exist? which is thoroughly unconvincing.

An argument from personal incredulity?

No - an argument from actually reading his book and examining his arguments, and listening to the debate it has engendered.

Toto · 05-07-2012, 06:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by trendkill

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

One thing that strikes me as odd about atheists is that anyone, without knowing or understanding anything about the issues, can see that atheists mostly accept the expert consensus on things.

Well, yes, but mostly they accept the scientific consensus on things. Scientific authority is validated by trust in the methods of science. However, you will rarely find atheists (or anyone else, actually) who defer to the consensus of philosophers, for example. I don't know if historians are the type of experts that you can expect atheists as a rule to defer to. I personally think there was probably a historical basis for Jesus because it seems like common sense and I'm aware that the scholarly consensus backs that up, but I don't know much of anything about the historical method or how historians work, so maybe those who do will have a different view...

There is no scholarly consensus among historians. There is a consensus among those trained as theologians who are pretending to do history that Jesus existed.

There is a propaganda campaign to claim that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed, but there are no modern historians trained as historians who have endorsed this. There is an active campaign to obscure the lack of evidence that Jesus existed by smearing those who point this out as conspiracy theorists.

Please see the threads in this forum on Richard Carrier's recently published "Proving History." (or via: amazon.co.uk) Or check older threads in the archives on the "Jesus Project."

thief of fire · 05-07-2012, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

...

Any way, I am not convinced that Biblical scholarship is weakened by antiquated beliefs or Christian influence.

An argument from personal incredulity?

This should be interesting.

Quote:

Lots of people want Jesus to exist, for their own social or political reasons,

This doesn't explain why atheists would believe he existed.

Quote:

I challenge you to find a current scholar who has laid out a scholarly case for the existence of Jesus. It's not there. There is one scholar, Bart Ehrman, who has just written what he calls a popular book, Did Jesus Exist? which is thoroughly unconvincing.

Amazing, you only just finished chiding someone for making an argument from personal incredulity, and you make one yourself.

James The Least · 05-07-2012, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

One thing that strikes me as odd about atheists is that anyone, without knowing or understanding anything about the issues, can see that atheists mostly accept the expert consensus on things. They accept the biologists' conclusions about Evolution, climatologists' conclusions about global warming, psychologists' conclusions about homosexuality, etc.

That, I think, looks very good and reasonable to the casual observer because it makes them look fact-driven and objective, rather than ideologically self-serving, simply accepting what helps their presupposed worldview and rejecting what doesn't, which is something I know many religious people unashamedly do.

One strange exception to that is the historical Jesus issue. Here many atheists (including prominent ones like Dan Barker) oppose the academic consensus. It's easy for the casual observer to see the ideologically self-serving reasons for that position, more than any other position taken by them.

Here's why: Accepting a historical Jesus first would satisfy the "experts' consensus" expectation of atheists, AND it has the added benefit of satisfying what might be referred to as a "dissimilarity" factor, i.e. accepting a historical Jesus does not serve the atheists' purpose and worldview. (Another example of dissimilarity is accepting the Big Bang rather than a static universe). On the other hand, rejecting a historical Jesus first contradicts the academic consensus and second is an "Oh big shocker, I wonder why!" predictably biased position.

At the cost of committing the "argument from authority" fallacy, I have to say that I side with the "experts" on every issue I can think of, outside of subjective topics such as political ideology. I defer to consensus because I myself am not an expert and trust that those who spent the effort and have the talent to research a topic, most likely can provide the best conclusion, especially when they agree with one another, and it's a bonus when they deliver results (especially in the fields of medicine and technology).

Furthermore, when there is a legitimate controversy (unlike an alleged "controversy" such as the non-existing one over evolution), I tend to either reserve judgment or pick a tentative position while remaining very uncommitted until the experts work things out amongst themselves.

First of all, a consensus in fields like history and religious studies is not the same thing as a consensus in fields like biology. The latter will have a large set of unequivocal statistical data to support its conclusions, while the former simply have the law of parsimony, criterion of embarrassment, and so forth.
Opinions based on the surviving data will therefore be more subjective and debatable than in a hard science like biology.

Second of all, people typically enter religious studies classes in order to become some sort of religious professional, and confirmation bias plays a larger role than it does in other fields. If you take a Jesus class and question the historicity of Jesus, you are probably going to get an F and flunk the class. Whereas if you did the same thing in a Socrates class it probably wouldn't matter.

Third, there is no consensus in reality. Most bible studies classes are taught in parochial schools where the ideology of the sponsoring religious denomination (Baptist/Catholic/whatever) decides what they teach about Jesus. Most of them teach that the resurrection was a historic event. As far as the rest go, here are just a few of the many different Jesuses proposed:

Magician – Morton Smith

Cynic – John Dominic Crossan

Apocalyptic Prophet – Ehrman, Allison, et al.

Pharisee – Maccoby

Essene dissident – Allegro

Gnosticizing Jew – Koester

Happily married man and father of sons – Sprong

Bandit – Horsley

Bastard – Schaberg

Cipher - Thiering

spin · 05-07-2012, 06:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

Bart Ehrman.

Ehrman has specifically stated that his recent book was not written for scholars.

Besides which Ehrman is a text scholar, not a historian. He is in the tradition that spans from

Fenton John Anthony Hort to

Bruce Metzger--who was his mentor, but to the best of my knowledge didn't dabble in history. The only reason I can see for Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" is that he has built up a sufficient following to be able to sell it despite his lack of historical credentials.

James The Least · 05-07-2012, 06:56 AM

Also, most atheists do accept a historical Jesus.

I accept a historical Jesus as well as a mythical Jesus. All we can deal with in this area are probabilities and conjecture. Our main sources are religious documents with a high degree of mysticism and obfuscation, so it's hard to accept the reliability of anything they claim.

Toto · 05-07-2012, 06:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thief of fire

...

This doesn't explain why atheists would believe he existed.

Atheists invented the [merely] historical Jesus to try to explain Christianity and rescue and modernize parts of the Christian tradition. It was a noble effort.

Quote:

I challenge you to find a current scholar who has laid out a scholarly case for the existence of Jesus. It's not there. There is one scholar, Bart Ehrman, who has just written what he calls a popular book, Did Jesus Exist? which is thoroughly unconvincing.

Amazing, you only just finished chiding someone for making an argument from personal incredulity, and you make one yourself.

It's not my personal opinion. You can read more in the threads devoted to the book.

Thief of fire seems to have stepped into the middle of a discussion without getting up to speed.

Steven Carr · 05-07-2012, 07:17 AM

Some people are indeed like creationists.

I remember reading about somebody who would only accept mythicism if somebody produced a statue that was half-Peter, half-rooster, like creationists will only accept evolution if somebody produces a fossil that is half-bird , half-monkey.

When it was pointed out to him that nobody believed in a half-Peter, half-rooster statue, he triumphantly claimed that he was totally correct and mythicists could not produce a statue that was half-Peter, half-rooster.

Just like creationists claim they are correct and nobody can produce a half-bird, half-monkey fossil....

Steven Carr · 05-07-2012, 07:20 AM

EHRMAN
First, I realized when doing my research for the book that since New Testament scholars have never taken mythicists seriously, they have never seen a need to argue against their views, which means that even though experts in the study of the historical Jesus (and Christian origins, and classics, and ancient history, etc etc.) have known in the back of their minds all sorts of powerful reasons for simply assuming that Jesus existed, no one had ever tried to prove it.

Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it....

CARR
How many people before Bart had tried to prove Jesus existed?

According to Bart (and who are we to doubt him) - exactly zero.

Zero people is not much of a consensus.

aa5874 · 05-07-2012, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

At the cost of committing the "argument from authority" fallacy, I have to say that I side with the "experts" on every issue I can think of, outside of subjective topics such as political ideology. I defer to consensus because I myself am not an expert and trust that those who spent the effort and have the talent to research a topic, most likely can provide the best conclusion, especially when they agree with one another, and it's a bonus when they deliver results (especially in the fields of medicine and technology)....

First of all, there is an ON-GOING Quest for an historical Jesus by EXPERTS for over 250 years . You do NOT even appear to understand that.

EXPERTS themselves have NOT ever agreed on the BIOGRAPHY of the historical Jesus that they are looking for.

Honest EXPERTS themselves will tell you that there is LITTLE or NO evidence for an Historical Jesus.

Honest EXPERTS will tell you an argument for historical Jesus POSES many Questions and is extremely problematic.

Honest EXPERTS will tell you that an argument for an historical Jesus means that the NT CANON is NOT historically reliable.

Honest EXPERTS AGREE that the NT CANON PRESENTS a Non-historical Jesus.

I AGREE with the EXPERTS who claim the NT CANON Presents a Non-historical Jesus and that an argument for an historical Jesus poses many questions.

EXPERTS who argue for an historical Jesus are like the ancient "Experts" who claimed the Earth was Flat and that God Created Man in Genesis Without a shred of credible evidence.

ASK EHRMAN, the LEADING "EXPERT", what document he used for his historical Jesus and he will tell you the Bible.

The leading ANCIENT EXPERTS used the BIBLE to argue for a FLAT Earth and Creation.

I am living in the 21st century so I don't use the Bible for history. I use the Bible for Myth Fables

EHRMAN STILL USE the BIBLE up to now as a History Book.

What kind of Modern day Expert use the Bible as history???

Historians don't use Myth Fables as History books.

I SIDE with the EXPERTS who do NOT use the Bible for History.

I SIDE with the EXPERTS who state the Bible presents a Non-historical Jesus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

I just recognize I'm not the next Galileo or Darwin who is going to turn the intellectual world upside down and therefore doesn't care what the experts say about anything. There are way too many people walking around who think they know better than the experts (mostly because the Bible tells them so).

Well, EHRMAN used the BIBLE for his historical Jesus. It was the Bible who told him so.

Galileo and Darwin did NOT use the Bible.

And people who used the Bible had Galilleo under house arrest.

I don't trust EXPERTS who use the Bible as a history book--they must lack competency.

I just can't believe that EHRMAN is using the Bible up to now for history.

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

05-07-2012, 06:56 AM	#26
James The Least Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: USA Posts: 393	Also, most atheists do accept a historical Jesus. I accept a historical Jesus as well as a mythical Jesus. All we can deal with in this area are probabilities and conjecture. Our main sources are religious documents with a high degree of mysticism and obfuscation, so it's hard to accept the reliability of anything they claim.

05-07-2012, 07:17 AM	#28
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	Some people are indeed like creationists. I remember reading about somebody who would only accept mythicism if somebody produced a statue that was half-Peter, half-rooster, like creationists will only accept evolution if somebody produces a fossil that is half-bird , half-monkey. When it was pointed out to him that nobody believed in a half-Peter, half-rooster statue, he triumphantly claimed that he was totally correct and mythicists could not produce a statue that was half-Peter, half-rooster. Just like creationists claim they are correct and nobody can produce a half-bird, half-monkey fossil....

05-07-2012, 07:20 AM	#29
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	EHRMAN First, I realized when doing my research for the book that since New Testament scholars have never taken mythicists seriously, they have never seen a need to argue against their views, which means that even though experts in the study of the historical Jesus (and Christian origins, and classics, and ancient history, etc etc.) have known in the back of their minds all sorts of powerful reasons for simply assuming that Jesus existed, no one had ever tried to prove it. Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it.... CARR How many people before Bart had tried to prove Jesus existed? According to Bart (and who are we to doubt him) - exactly zero. Zero people is not much of a consensus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.