Jaybees

Evidently you missed the above, so I'm asking it again.

Thanks for your reply.

outhouse

You already know the answer, and im not playing games with you much longer.


The field of theology contains many areas one person could spend a lifetime, in only a very small portion, lets say Paul for example.

Would someone who studied only Paul, be a authority on OT mythology? Possible, but I would seek elsewhere.



Knowledge and education vs ignorance, the choice is yours.

thief of fire

Hopefully you'll continue to be spared

And, if it aint broken then don't fix it I say, so I'll continue to watch with interest, as i have been doing for some time. I mention this only because there has been some sort of admission from Toto that the forum aint what it could be. But if there is no problem then I guess there is no problem.

mountainman

The HJ and the MJ are hypotheses after all.

Keith&Co.

Well, there's knowledge, ignorance and opinion.

The fallacy 'appeal to authority' is actually a shortening. Appealing to an authority is fine. That's why we have authorities.

The fallacy rests in appealing to respect for an authority,


If Einstein had made a statement about physics, he's an authority and his statement would have weight in an argument.
If he's quoted as believing in God, he's talking outside of his acknowledged expertise. He's quoted because the quoter believes everyone will respect Einstein as being a authority, when it's really just an opinion.
Or 'Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believed in Theosophy! You think you're smarter than Sir Arthur Conan Doyle?' He's offered as an authority, based on his reputation as a smart guy, or his association with a fictional very smart guy. But there's still legwork waiting to show he's an expert on theosophy, not just someone with an opinion.

If someone is just saying 'senior historians' or 'major scholars' or something like that, they're not establishing that they're appealing to authorities. They're hoping that their opponent will respect the opinion of 'major scholars' just because they're introduced as 'major scholars.' That's the fallacy.

Frankly, you can only appeal to an authority after you've established some means both sides will agree to about what makes someone an authority in the field under discussion.
If you dismiss experts because you dislike their conclusions, you'll never get anywhere in an appeal to authority.

outhouse

To show my main point with this thread, your examining the issue and posting a responsible reply to address the issue, most of the rest just flat outright deny the whole concept.

Im all for responsible use of the concept.



The problem here is the myther side of the camp denies all authority, following along the lines of conspiracy theorist, because they have no real authorities that agree on anything. The two most educated on the matter hold fringe postions and disagree with one another, Price and Carrier.

I still admire Carrier for examining both sides very critically, but he often takes a middle of the road opinion in his own unique way.

Its kind of hard to appeal to an authority when your position only has 1% or less of the authorities in the field in question.

Toto

1. Please stop using the term "myther." You clearly intend it as as insult.

2. It is not true that mythicists deny all authority. If you have read Earl Doherty, he cites authorities continually to support his interpretations.

Mythicists just object to the bogus argument that all tenured academics believe that Jesus was a historical person. so therefore the question is closed and not worth even examining. That is an invalid appeal to authority.

thief of fire

However he has been known to cite an authority who disagrees with his conclusion, without mentioning that the authority he cited disagreed with him.
This, I would say is a misuse of citing an authority.
IOW if one wants to cite an authority and that authority disagrees with your overall position is it expected that this will be mentioned....no?

Toto

Not necessarily. Doherty has cited historicists to support various points of interpretation where they agree with him. He has not implied that they support his overall thesis of a mythical Jesus.

Please stop recycling these attacks on Doherty after they have been refuted.

thief of fire

It is standard practice not to cite someone as a reference in support of your argument, if that reference disagrees with you, unless you note that disagreement.
This is not an attack on Doherty. It is pointing out that Doherty doesn't do what scholars are expected to do.
In what way has this been refuted?