Ted Hoffman

Because the world is secular. Religion is an imposition of extra baggage to study. A Photon does not care whether an electron has touched Jesus or not. Gravity does not care whether you are Jesus or Mohammed. Human experience has shown that the laws of physics remain the same and religion has no influence on the scheme of actual things. That is why naturalism has prevailed.
Experience has also shown that religious bias undermines objectivity. That is why religious beliefs must be left outside before one approaches the alleged table where serious people like myself sit contemplating volumes of ancient texts.

Sauron

The claims of both groups are mutually exclusive with those of christians.

So if your argument is based on having lots of people saying/believing something, then you have to admit that muslims and buddhists have real experiences of God.

Either that, or your entire premise is busted from the get-go.

judge

I would disagree.

And am happy to discuss further on GRD if you wish.

Remeber this is what I wrote:

I think you may be thinking I wrote something else...no?

youngalexander

There is however a fundamental problem with this. If the Christians all came to the same faith conclusion (after investigation) that would hardly be sufficient for there are many other faiths who likewise make such claims. In fact, even amongst the Christians there are considerable differences.

What then would you have a poor skeptical seeker after truth do?
Which faith??

You see, faith as a means of finding objective truth simply fails. There is only one way that humankind has found to work. Follow the evidence and apply reason.

Roger Pearse

Starting with the presupposition that all those involved in Christian origins were completely wrong about the central basis for everything they did and thought is not a value-neutral position. Suggesting that only traitors and renegades can be trusted to give an objective view of something sounds very odd.

It also seems a curious idea to suggest that Christians are all biased therefore only non-Christians can possibly study Christian origins objectively. Such a position involves evident bias before we start. Every one has some agenda; the non-Christian usually lives by societal values; these are in our day rather hostile to Christianity.

Only Christians have any legitimate interest in the question of Christian origins, as far as I can see. When others get involved, we have to ask why, and what they bring to the table. So I imagine that all of this is perhaps some form of apologia for the involvement of people who hate Christianity in writing revisionist accounts of Christian origins in order to serve unacknowledged agendas and unacknowledged commitment to societal values. It is a depressing feature of writing on the NT that much of what I have read tells me only what views were acceptable to those doing university appointments in the period in question.

Such seems rather self-serving, and pointless. As an example, I well remember reading a book Tertullian the Puritan, supposedly about Tertullian and written in 1945 in Dublin. It was an odd experience, until I realised that 'Tertullian' was just a stalking-horse for Ulster Protestantism and the whole volume merely an expression of the sectional hate of the writer for the enemies of his social group. I see no need to read such rubbish. Surely the only people that we want to see studying something are people who love their subject, not those who hate it and have a grudge to gratify?

There is certainly room for the objective non-Christian. Indeed there is even room for the objective atheist, if such an animal exists devoid of the boiling animosities characteristic of the breed. The outsider can bring insight. But what rational person would undertake a study of a Roman institution and start by excluding all the Romans?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Febble

I agree completely. The idea that faith has anything to do with "objective truth" is self-contradictory. That's why I got in trouble recently on a GRD thread for claiming to be a theist, and yet refusing to assert "God exists" as an objective truth.

And as a Christian theist I find it frustrating that I can't trust Christian scholarship unless I can be sure that the scholar in question knows the difference between what s/he holds to be true as doctrine and "objective truth". Which is why I lurk here.

I know that there can be no objective evidence for God's existence (if there were, God wouldn't be a god). But I know there CAN be objective evidence for or against specific claims made in the NT. And I want to know what it is. Therefore I agree with Peter that I need to see the imprimatur of methodological naturalism on any piece of research before I will take it seriously.

Peter Kirby

Febble: I like you.

Roger Pearse: I like you too.

Riverwind: I like you, also.

Chris Price: You know that I like you.

Youngalexander: You're a cool cat as well.

I am trying to reach a synthesis of these positions. :blush:

Peter Kirby

I feel kind of like the guy in Blazing Saddles who says of the railroad workers, "we'll take the niggers and the chinks, but we don't want the irish!" Followed by "aww fuck it, everybody."

It is obviously hard to separate evidence what with all the biases and accusations of bias, but that problem will not go away if those who believe Christian dogma are excluded. And such an exclusion is undesirable on social grounds; it's bad precedent.

So I'm stuck in the position of an open table for all, a great pot luck of study of Christian origins, and only my critical eye will keep me from eating poisoned food, and only a sense of shame and conscience will prevent participants from bringing to the table something poisoned by prejudice.

The kingdom of god is indeed like the man who threw a banquet and invited in the blind, the lame, and the lepers; for none of us are without fault. This only means that the blind need to carry, and the lame help indicate the direction; in other words, that by working together we can overcome our shortcomings.

I am still disturbed by the violation of the NOMA principle, but the problem is as old as Aquinas and so need not overly exercise us instead of actual historical-critical study. If you want to understand the dharma, practice it; likewise for historical criticism.

Febble

Well, as an example of the problem, I'd like to mention the Turin shroud. I think it's a really interesting object. I don't know what it is. I don't know how the image was made. I don't know how old it is. I don't know whether the human being represented by the image was a real person, and, if he was, when he lived or how he died.

And it really bugs me that I can't find any reliable assessment of the evidence we have. I've looked at "skeptical" sites, and I've looked at "pro-authenticity" sites. I've looked at the science papers, and I've looked at the iconography papers, and the history papers. And I've found papers in all categories that sound to me like BS, and papers in all categories that sound like sound arguments from good data.

So I'm certainly not convinced that we can leave anybody out on principle, whether it's skeptics or "believers". What we have to leave out is the BS. I don't know that there is an alternative to the scientific method and rigorous peer-review. But it's so difficult when there are so many stakeholders.

ksen

Here's the part I left out:

So "methodological naturalism" comprises:

1) Experience,
2) Induction, and
3) the whole Historical Method.

I don't see how any of that answers my question to you of whether or not Methodological Naturalism would allow for any sort of supernatural explanations.

Maybe I'm just being thrown off by the term "naturalism." :huh: