Toto

Hi Layman - You were the one who said that you were safe from having Christianity proven wrong. (I only said "if" it were proven wrong.)

Let's not hijack this thread with a lot of sniping. Let Richard respond to these posts.

Nomad

Several points:

First, Richard did not mention Christians, nor did I in my response. He used "religionist", and this is obviously as broad a category of types of belief as is "atheist." So my first answer is no, all of the Christians on this board would not provide even anecdotal evidence for his assertion.

Second, even if we do confine it to the category of Christian, I know for a fact that Bede, Layman, Tercel, Polycarp, CJD, and I are more than happy to accept considerable ambiguity about a great many things, including claims made about the Historical Jesus in the Bible. So on this basis even this limited attempt to confine the statement to "anecdotal evidence" gathered just from posters to this board would not make his point valid.

Third, this is not about the historicity of Jesus, but, rather, about whether or not religionists despise historical uncertainties. As with many things polemical, the gods are in the details, and in this case Richard's statement is so sweeping and all encompassing as to be a blanket statement about everyone with a religion and how we view the study of history. Were we to take Richard at his word, serious scholars like Sanders, Meier, Brown, Borg, Crossan, and hundreds of others would be discounted entirely on the basis that they were "religionists" terrified of historical ambiguity. Quite frankly, I consider this to be very close to slanderous, and it is certainly poisoning the well.

Finally, given that Richard's entire point was about how to use good historical methodology, and to avoid fallacious argumentation, the irony of this particular bit of polemics was striking. It was, more than anything else, what prompted me to reply at all.

Like Toto, I will await Richard's reply. My experience in the past in matters like this is that he is more than willing to acknowledge an error when he has made one, and to then apologize. I expect that he will be no less gracious in this instance.

Brian Trafford (aka Nomad)

Toto

I think you're overreacting to one phrase. The term "religionist" defined as "One earnestly devoted or attached to a religion; a religious zealot," is a term that I have only heard used by atheist activists. Carrier is going to be talking to such a group, and he is speaking their language.

And you notice that he did not say that propositions from religious zealots should be automatically rejected. Just that religious zealots hate historical ambiguity. He undoubtedly had some specific examples in mind.

I do not know anyone who describes Sanders, Meier, Brown, Borg, or Crossan as religious zealots, and I don't see anything in Carrier's statement that indicates he would dismiss their works on that basis.

Nomad

If he is going to use "inside" language, then so be it, but it does look like he is tarring with a very broad brush, and in so doing undermines his own position. Moreover, it would have been helpful if you had explained this idiosyncratic nomenclature earlier in the thread. I looked the word up in the dictionary and it reads:

Main Entry: re·li·gion·ist
Pronunciation: -'li-j&-nist, -'lij-nist
Function: noun
Date: 1653
: a person adhering to a religion; especially : a religious zealot

Since I had never personally heard of this word, and I doubt that many others (especially the theists on these boards) had, then it is important to be clear in who one is speaking about. This is especially true, as your original response to me suggested that you believed that the Christians who post on this board (i.e. me, Bede, Layman, Tercel, Haran, and CJD) could be viewed as examples of religionists.

Brian (Nomad)

Toto

Religionist has the implication of someone committed to their religion who proselytizes. I think the word zealot might be too emotionally laden to apply to you and the others here, because that word implies more than just taking a position on an internet board. But you do seem to be very committed to your religion and to a religious point of view.

And when I continually read arguments that "if we reject the historical sources for Jesus we must also reject the sources for all ancient history and we can't do that" I do get the idea that the persons making that argument are uncomfortable with uncertainty.

Vinnie

Where do you read those at?

Vinnie

Nomad

Now I definitely need confirmation from Richard as to what he was talking about. If he believes as you do, then my original post stands unaltered, as you appear to believe that the theists here (like me, for example) cannot abide historical ambiguities.

I honestly do not know how you reached such a conclusion, especially since I, and other theists, have been more than happy to admit that most of ancient history (the historical Jesus included) is largely unknown to us. As for Richard, I do not know what he believes, and your posts have served only to confuse the matter further.

I will wait for his response.

Brian (Nomad)

contracycle

So you admit that it is NOT known whether jesus actually, historically existed?

Then what is the basis of your belief?

spin

Then how can you talk of "the historical Jesus" (a term which would normally make one understand: a person, in this case Jesus, who can be shown through historical methods to have existed)?


spin

Vorkosigan

Ironically, this was one of Nomad's old arguments.

Nomad writes:
Nomad, a large body of psychological and social data on authoritarianism, conservatism and religion supports Carrier's assertion.

In criminal offenders...

A classic work with a good review of the work starting with Adorno
As with McClosky, the pattern found might well have been a transcript from "The Authoritarian Personality". The intolerant were more: nationalistic, intolerant of ambiguity, superstitious, threat-oriented, authoritarian, religious, child-punitive, distrustful of politicians and venerative of their mothers. They were less interested in politics, of lower social class and less educated.

Hope this helps. There's lots of stuff out there.

Vorkosigan