Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 05-01-2011, 07:49 PM

Miracles: Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapter 15 Part 3.

The blog publication includes a podcast. Anyone really interested in an analysis of Gibbon's most welcome attack on the history of the christian religion should take the time to digest this. A most welcome review.All of it is worth reading and/or listening to IMO. Here are some extracts. It commences as follows.

Quote:

Gibbon has an issue with miracles.

By the eighteenth century miracles were off the agenda. Galileo and Newton had provided detailed descriptions of the laws underlying what was making the world go round. European sailors had sailed around the globe and while they revealed new lands that hadn't been known before, none of them turned out to be magic.

Quote:

Vespasian is famous for joking that he was becoming a God on his deathbed. Religion was strictly for show and was only taken seriously by the people who lacked learning. In what I think must be the most quoted lines from Decline and Fall he notes that pagan superstitions were regarded by the educated as equally false, by the ignorant as equally true and by the administrator as equally useful. That quote is almost always taken out of context and applied to religion in general. It isn't hard to imagine Gibbon doing the same.

Quote:

How many of the early Church fathers
colluded in this pious fabrication?

There are many gems in this blog review of Gibbon's issue with miracles.
Enjoy!

Jesus turns water into wine

Toto · 05-01-2011, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Miracles: Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapter 15 Part 3.

...

Quote:

How many of the early Church fathers colluded in this pious fabrication?

...

Please stop taking quotes out of context. The pious fabrication was the addition of a literary detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blogger

Of course, as Gibbon knew full well the darkened sky detail was added later because it was a literary cliche to mark the death of someone of significance. It was as clear a sign that the whole thing had been made up as it is possible to imagine. And no doubt plenty of people at the time were just as aware that it was a fiction. How many of the early Church fathers colluded in this pious fabrication? Who knows, but it would have been fascinating to know the opinion of someone as well read on the sources as Gibbon.

Three hundred years later this all seems mild enough. . . .

And I think your source is wrong on this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blogger

Religion was strictly for show and was only taken seriously by the people who lacked learning. In what I think must be the most quoted lines from Decline and Fall he notes that pagan superstitions were regarded by the educated as equally false, by the ignorant as equally true and by the administrator as equally useful. That quote is almost always taken out of context and applied to religion in general.

The quote is hard to track down - see this wiki talk page. But it was applied to all religions, not just pagan superstitions.

mountainman · 05-02-2011, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Miracles: Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire Chapter 15 Part 3.

...

Quote:

How many of the early Church fathers colluded in this pious fabrication?

...

Please stop taking quotes out of context. The pious fabrication was the addition of a literary detail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by blogger

Of course, as Gibbon knew full well the darkened sky detail was added later because it was a literary cliche to mark the death of someone of significance. It was as clear a sign that the whole thing had been made up as it is possible to imagine. And no doubt plenty of people at the time were just as aware that it was a fiction. How many of the early Church fathers colluded in this pious fabrication? Who knows, but it would have been fascinating to know the opinion of someone as well read on the sources as Gibbon.
Three hundred years later this all seems mild enough. . . .

The miraculous events described in the literary details did not happen,
rather they were simply and commonly and piously forged or authored.

The detail in question refered to the common knowledge of the miraculous events which accompanied the death of Julius Caesar, reverberating throughout the Roman Panhellenic Empire, sun stopping and all that. This was retweeted for Jesus. It's novel authorship of fiction. Gibbon exposes this.

Quote:

And I think your source is wrong on this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by blogger

Religion was strictly for show and was only taken seriously by the people who lacked learning. In what I think must be the most quoted lines from Decline and Fall he notes that pagan superstitions were regarded by the educated as equally false, by the ignorant as equally true and by the administrator as equally useful. That quote is almost always taken out of context and applied to religion in general.

The quote is hard to track down - see this wiki talk page. But it was applied to all religions, not just pagan superstitions.

Vol 1 Ch 2

Quote:

Universal spirit of toleration.

I. The policy of the emperors and the senate, as far as it concerned religion, was happily seconded by the reflections of the enlightened, and by the habits of the superstitious, part of their subjects. The various modes of worship, which prevailed in the Roman world, were all considered by the people, as equally true; by the philosopher, as equally false; and by the magistrate, as equally useful. And thus toleration produced not only mutual indulgence, but even religious concord.

Of the people.

The superstition of the people was not embittered by any mixture of theological rancour; nor was it confined by the chains of any speculative system. The devout polytheist, though fondly attached to his national rites, admitted with implicit faith the different religions of the earth. (3) Fear, gratitude, and curiosity, a dream or an omen, a singular disorder, or a distant journey, perpetually disposed him to multiply the articles of his belief, and to enlarge the list of his protectors. The thin texture of the Pagan mythology was interwoven with various but not discordant materials. As soon as it was allowed that sages and heroes, who had lived, or who had died for the benefit of their country, were exalted to a state of power and immortality, it was universally confessed that they deserved if not the adoration, at least the reverence of all mankind. The deities of a thousand groves and a thousand streams possessed, in peace, their local and respective influence; nor could the Roman who deprecated the wrath of the Tiber, deride the Egyptian who presented his offering to the beneficent genius of the Nile. The visible powers of Nature, the planets, and the elements, were the same throughout the universe. The invisible governors of the moral world were inevitably cast in a similar mould of fiction and allegory. Every virtue, and even vice, acquired its divine representative; every art and profession its patron, whose attributes, in the most distant ages and countries, were uniformly derived from the character of their peculiar votaries. A republic of gods of such opposite tempers and interest required, in every system, the moderating hand of a supreme magistrate, who, by the progress of knowledge and flattery, was gradually invested with the sublime perfections of an Eternal Parent, and an Omnipotent Monarch. (4) Such was the mild spirit of antiquity, that the nations were less attentive to the difference than to the resemblance of their religious worship. The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they met before their respective altars, easily persuaded themselves, that under various names, and with various ceremonies, they adored the same deities. The elegant mythology of Homer gave a beautiful, and almost a regular form, to the polytheism of the ancient world. (5)

Of philosophers.

The philosophers of Greece deduced their morals from the nature of man, rather than from that of God. They meditated, however, on the Divine Nature, as a very curious and important speculation; and in the profound inquiry, they displayed the strength and weakness of the human understanding (6). Of the four most celebrated schools, the Stoics and the Platonists endeavoured to reconcile the jarring interests of reason and piety. They have left us the most sublime proofs of the existence and perfections of the first cause; but, as it was impossible for them to conceive the creation of matter, the workman in the Stoic philosophy was not sufficiently distinguished from the work; whilst, on the contrary, the spiritual God of Plato and his disciples resembled an idea rather than a substance. The opinions of the Academics and Epicureans were of a less religious cast; but whilst the modest science of the former induced them to doubt, the positive ignorance of the latter urged them to deny, the providence of a Supreme Ruler. The spirit of inquiry, prompted by emulation, and supported by freedom, had divided the public teachers of philosophy into a variety of contending sects; but the ingenuous youth who, from every part, resorted to Athens, and the other seats of learning in the Roman empire, were alike instructed in every school to reject and to despise the religion of the multitude. How, indeed, was it possible, that a philosopher should accept, as divine truths, the idle tales of the poets, and the incoherent traditions of antiquity; or, that he should adore, as gods, those imperfect beings whom he must have despised, as men ! Against such unworthy adversaries, Cicero condescended to employ the arms of reason and eloquence; but the satire of Lucian was a much more adequate, as well as more efficacious weapon. We may be well assured, that a writer conversant with the world would never have ventured to expose the gods of his country to public ridicule, had they not already been the objects of secret contempt among the polished and enlightened orders of society. (7) Notwithstanding the fashionable irreligion which prevailed in the age of the Antonines, both the interests of the priests and the credulity of the people were sufficiently respected. In their writings and conversation, the philosophers of antiquity asserted the independent dignity of reason; but they resigned their actions to the commands of law and of custom. Viewing, with a smile of pity and indulgence, the various errors of the vulgar, they diligently practised the ceremonies of their fathers, devoutly frequented the temples of the gods; and sometimes condescending to act a part on the theatre of superstition, they concealed the sentiments of an Atheist under the sacerdotal robes. Reasoners of such a temper were scarcely inclined to wrangle about their respective modes of faith, or of worship. It was indifferent to them what shape the folly of the multitude might choose to assume; and they approached, with the same inward contempt, and the same external reverence, the altars of the Libyan, the Olympian, or the Capitoline Jupiter. (8)

Of the magistrate.

It is not easy to conceive from what motives a spirit of persecution could introduce itself into the Roman councils. The magistrates could not be actuated by a blind, though honest bigotry, since the magistrates were themselves philosophers; and the schools of Athens had given laws to the senate. They could not be impelled by ambition or avarice, as the temporal and ecclesiastical powers were united in the same hands. The pontiffs were chosen among the most illustrious of the senators; and the office of Supreme Pontiff was constantly exercised by the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the advantages of religion, as it is connected with civil government. They encouraged the public festivals which humanise the manners of the people. They managed the arts of divination, as a convenient instrument of policy: and they respected as the firmest bond of society, the useful persuasion that, either in this or in a future life, the crime of perjury is most assuredly punished by the avenging gods. (9) But whilst they acknowledged the general advantages of religion, they were convinced that the various modes of worship contributed alike to the same salutary purposes; and that, in every country, the form of superstition, which had received the sanction of time and experience, was the best adapted to the climate and to its In the provinces;.inhabitants.Avarice and taste very frequently despoiled the vanquished nations of the elegant statues of their gods, and the rich ornaments of their temples; (10) but, in the exercise of the religion which they derived from their ancestors, they uniformly experienced the indulgence, and even protection, of the Roman conquerors. The province of Gaul seems, and indeed only seems, an exception to this universal toleration. Under the specious pretext of abolishing human sacrifices, the emperors Tiberius and Claudius suppressed the dangerous power of the Druids, (11) But the priests themselves, their gods and their altars, subsisted in peaceful obscurity till the final destruction of Paganism. (12)

Doug Shaver · 05-02-2011, 07:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The miraculous events described in the literary details did not happen,

It hardly follows that the people who wrote about them happening did not sincerely believe that they happened.

The notion that Christian writers either told the truth or were lying through their teeth is just so much apologetic crap, usually. Skeptics really should know better than to parrot that stuff.

mountainman · 05-03-2011, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The miraculous events described in the literary details did not happen,

It hardly follows that the people who wrote about them happening did not sincerely believe that they happened.

The notion that Christian writers either told the truth or were lying through their teeth is just so much apologetic crap, usually. Skeptics really should know better than to parrot that stuff.

When Eusebius forged the TF does it follow that Eusebius believed Josephus wrote about Jesus? When Eusebius (or some other Christian writer of the 4th century) forged Jesus, Paul, Seneca, Agbar - does it follow that Eusebius believed he had found letter exchanges between Paul and Seneca, and between Jesus and King Agbar?

Miracles are usually just an extention of common forgery. The notion that the new testament is a fiction containing no historical truth sits well with the impossible miracles that one find inside its covers. The author of the article and podcast referenced at post #1 remarks that Gibbon was probably an atheist. Gibbon essentially denounces the miracles as unscientific bullshit.

I dont think the sun stood still to commemorate the passing of Julius Caesar, and I dont think the sun stood still to commemorate the passing of the Harry Potterish Jesus character.

IMO the better explanation is that people were genuinely effected at the loss of Caesar, and wrote some poetry or some verses about the cosmological effects surrounding the death of Julius Caesear, such as that found in the letter of Marcus preserved in Josephus. These were circulated through the Roman Empire as legends. Sometime after the death of JC (the Caesar) the christian authors simply cloned that bit for the death of the other JC.

Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, as far as I am concerned, the collection of all the evidence points relentlessly towards common forgery, and that at the end of the day, all "Early Christian Testimonials" are best explained simply as a case of some pious 4th century (or later) forger, lying through their teeth.

Doug Shaver · 05-04-2011, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

It hardly follows that the people who wrote about them happening did not sincerely believe that they happened.

The notion that Christian writers either told the truth or were lying through their teeth is just so much apologetic crap, usually. Skeptics really should know better than to parrot that stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

When Eusebius forged the TF does it follow that Eusebius believed Josephus wrote about Jesus?

Of course not. What makes you think I would believe that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Miracles are usually just an extention of common forgery.

You say so. Have you got a better reason why anyone should believe so?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The notion that the new testament is a fiction containing no historical truth sits well with the impossible miracles that one find inside its covers.

There are lots of other facts that it sits even better with.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Gibbon essentially denounces the miracles as unscientific bullshit.

I think they're unscientific bullshit, too, but I don't assume that anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, as far as I am concerned, the collection of all the evidence points relentlessly towards common forgery

Suit yourself. I see evidence to the contrary in ordinary human nature.

mountainman · 05-04-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

It hardly follows that the people who wrote about them happening did not sincerely believe that they happened.

The notion that Christian writers either told the truth or were lying through their teeth is just so much apologetic crap, usually. Skeptics really should know better than to parrot that stuff.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

When Eusebius forged the TF does it follow that Eusebius believed Josephus wrote about Jesus?

Of course not. What makes you think I would believe that?

I only mentioned that as an instance of where it does not follow that the people who wrote about miracles happening did not sincerely believe that they happened. Using the Carrier gateway, we might say that Eusebius is either hopelessly credulous or a liar - or perhaps both. I find it easier to think that Eusebius was a sponsored propagandist who was exceedingly clever in his rhetoric, especially in the pathos department. That is, I'd give to Eusebius the little red card that says "You are a liar".

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Miracles are usually just an extention of common forgery.

You say so. Have you got a better reason why anyone should believe so?

YES - because it was useful for the ruler for the people to believe so.

Gibbon appears to have paraphrased this quote, often attributed to Seneca:

“Religion is regarded by
the common people as true,
by the wise as false,
and by the rulers as useful.".

We might also comment that the more power a ruler held, the more useful religion became for his agenda, and once we are dealing with rulers who through one means or another have attained absolute military supremacy over a great number of people, then religion becomes absolutely useful. In this we can cite Ardashir (3rd century Persian empire), Constantine (4th century Roman empire) and Muhhamad (7th century Arabian empire).

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

The notion that the new testament is a fiction containing no historical truth sits well with the impossible miracles that one find inside its covers.

There are lots of other facts that it sits even better with.

I am always open to receive historical facts if they can be so established. What's an example or two?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Gibbon essentially denounces the miracles as unscientific bullshit.

I think they're unscientific bullshit, too, but I don't assume that anyone who says otherwise is a liar.

Gibbon was not directly denouncing the people in his audience, who may or may not have believed in miracles. As the subject of the blog and podcast so aptly stated: "Gibbon didn't think much of miracles. They made him sarcastic.". That is he did not rant at his audience and call them liars for their contemporary belief.

Rather Gibbon was directly attacking the personalities in the "suspicious character of the early church", and it is these people IMO to whom Gibbon is directing his attentions. Eusebius stands at the head of the line of witnesses. Do these witnesses believe what they wrote? I dont think so, I think they just lied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Until someone provides evidence to the contrary, as far as I am concerned, the collection of all the evidence points relentlessly towards common forgery

Suit yourself. I see evidence to the contrary in ordinary human nature.

I too can appreciate that a generation after Nicaea, until the present day, people are often educated into their belief systems by their parents and by the cultural regime that they grow up with. Where people are brought up and thus conditioned to somewhat BELIEVE in their "Book-Religion" of any type (we can generize here), then obviously I am not saying that these believers are liars. I see their beliefs as mistakenly held assumption, and that they are acting in accordance to these beliefs, not lying.

However the issue here with Gibbon is not with contemporary times, but with the earliest records of the so-called universal canon following Christian church and its historical integrity. Gibbon sneers at it, Momigliano follows him. and I am following both of them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GIBBON

The scanty and suspicious materials of ecclesiastical history seldom enable us to dispel the dark cloud that hangs over the first age of the church. The great law of impartiality too often obliges us to reveal the imperfections of the uninspired teachers and believers of the Gospel; and, to a careless observer, their faults may seem to cast a shade on the faith which they professed. But the scandal of the pious Christian, and the fallacious triumph of the Infidel, should cease as soon as they recollect not only by whom, but likewise to whom, the Divine Revelation was given.

The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings. Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth.

To this inquiry an obvious but unsatisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great Author. But as truth and reason seldom find so favourable a reception in the world, and as the wisdom of Providence frequently condescends to use the passions of the human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind, as instruments to execute its purpose, we may still be permitted, though with becoming submission, to ask, not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth of the Christian church?

Doug Shaver · 05-05-2011, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am always open to receive historical facts if they can be so established.

But apparently, it is not possible to establish any fact that is inconsistent with your theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I too can appreciate that a generation after Nicaea, until the present day, people are often educated into their belief systems by their parents and by the cultural regime that they grow up with.

Uh huh. But before Nicaea, everybody knew miracles never happened, and so up until that time, anybody who wrote a book saying miracles happened had to be lying, is that it?

mountainman · 05-05-2011, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I am always open to receive historical facts if they can be so established.

But apparently, it is not possible to establish any fact that is inconsistent with your theory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

I too can appreciate that a generation after Nicaea, until the present day, people are often educated into their belief systems by their parents and by the cultural regime that they grow up with.

Uh huh. But before Nicaea, everybody knew miracles never happened, and so up until that time, anybody who wrote a book saying miracles happened had to be lying, is that it?

Not at all. Fortunately the Christian fires of the 4th century did not burn all the evidence and all the heretics. Miracles were accepted as TRUE, FALSE and USEFUL. (See above) Before Nicaea, people were once free to select their own mode of worship. We see this for example in the worship of Apollonius of Tyana, whom Eusebius also writes voluminously about. We see this in the worship of the healing god Asclepius - the archaeology assures us that such FREE worship existed, and, as the saying went, believed as true by the people, as false by the philosophers and as useful by the ruler.

As Gibbon did, if we examine the USE of religion and the belief in and the literature that might be used to support this ancient belief, it is readily available. The problem with Nicaea is that the choice which was once FREE to select a "miracle worker" for oneself, amidst the milieu of available "miracle workers" became exceedingly UNFREE.

Not only did Constantine reject all the Panhellenic miracle workers whom all the earlier emperors had variously patronised - he destroyed their temples! He wanted to fashion a state based monotheistic regime, which if we are to try and describe it, appesrs to be based on a "bunch of miracle workers" who inhabit the books of the new testament canon. Constantine spent a great deal of time and effort and gold publishing the New Testament Canon.

Did he allow people free choice of reading? No. He burnt Plato and Porphyry and others that may well have included the original writings of Apollonius of Tyana, mentioned by Eusebius. He provided the "ONE TRUE ACCOUNT".

Moreover, he sponsored Big E to prepare and research a history of the "ONE TRUE ACCOUNT". While all of these newly published Christian propaganda was being published and circulated to his minions, Constantine engaged the army to perform search and destroy missions for any prohibited books. The INDEX Librorum Prohibitorum started with the Boss. It only crawled out of a dark hole in the 16th century because it was a codex monster and it was fascinated with Guttenburg.

So to return to your original question:

Quote:

But before Nicaea, everybody knew miracles never happened, and so up until that time, anybody who wrote a book saying miracles happened had to be lying, is that it?

Not at all.

But in the case of Big E and Constantine, we have evidence to support the claim that Big E lied through his teeth, for the glory of the Boss's church, and probably, for his own life. The Boss is missing his early architecture and C14 certs. Eusebius is a fraud. What more can I say? As far as I see it the "Early Christian Warning System" should have detected some solid evidence for the miraculous claims made by the church fathers of Constantine's Canonical Codices. Instead others are stressfully noting that we have a vacuum of evidence. Go figure.

Doug Shaver · 05-05-2011, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

we have evidence to support the claim that Big E lied through his teeth

You say you have evidence.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.