Chris Weimer

Toto doesn't get it.

Whenever I or what used to be Jeffrey brought up how MJers are analogous to creationists, we applied a logical analogy. That is, the logic is both the same. This is how analogies are supposed to inherently work. The situations may be different, but the underlying logic is the same.

However, he fires back by using a situational analogy. That is, the logic is completely different, but there's something in the environment that links them together. His most used one is how creationists and HJers think that the Bible has truth in it.

Why is this fallacious? Because anyone at any time can be compared in this way with nothing being shown. Creationists and MJers both are humans, thus they are analogous. At least, this is the same logic used by Toto and company. Little does he realize that not all MJers think that all of the Bible has no history in it. In fact, only the extreme fringe can deny that people like Pilate or John the Baptist are historical figures.

Toto not only failed to apply a proper analogy, but he inevitably compared himself to a creationist as a jab against HJers.

gstafleu

Maybe you could repeat this logic here, something like "MJer's are analogous to creationists because..."?

Gerard Stafleu

Dreadnought

There are some obvious similarities between creationists and MJ'ers. Both are fringe groups that are sneered at by the mainstream. Both intend to overturn the mainstream opinion completely. Both have created their own journals rather than publish in the mainstream ones. Both appear to be more directed towards the general public than the scholarly or the scientific community.

There are also differences. The case for a HJ has hardly been made while the theory of evolution is rock solid. MJ'ers try to explain all the data, creationists invent their own. Creationists are notorious cherrypickers and also blatant liars if it suits them. HJ'ers and MJ'ers use the same methodology (as far as I can see). Creationism is a popular idea among the unwashed masses (at least in the US) while MJ is not.

I'd say that MJ and creationism might on the surface appear similar, but is very different on important points, particularly method.

Toto

Speaking as a participant and not a moderator, this seems quite confused to me. A "logical analogy" does not at first glance mean that "the logic is the same." And it's not clear why Chris thinks that "the underlying logic is the same."

Christian apologists who post here (note that Chris is not a Christian apologist) have often tried to badmouth mythicists by claiming that they are analogous to creationists, just because they are outside the mainstream consensus. The analogy fails, in my opinion.

My comparison of creationists to HJ is not a serious debating point. It is just a return of the volley in what I consider to be a false analogy.

And I don't think that one can speak of correct or incorrect analogies. I don't reason by analogies, and I hope others don't either. But analogies are often used and misused to shape a debate and bring up emotional connections.

I think that the analogy of MJers to creationists is just such a misuse of an analogy. We all know that creationists are fringe nutcases with no credibility, so if there is some analogy, a debater can create an association between MJ'ers and fringe nutcases, making anything a MJ'er says suspect. This is a sort of poisoning of the well.

MJ'ers do not use the same underlying logic as creationists. So there is no "logical analogy."

The ball is in your court, Chris.

Soul Invictus

That analogy seems very strange to me.

I always conceived a good analogy to be that MJers to HJers were like comparing weak atheists to strong atheists.

Toto

Well, I don't know if Chris has conceded on this point.

But on the general idea of peer review and why Mythicists aren't peer reviewed, there was an interesting bit on the front page of the LA Times, in an article on cutting edge neuroscience:

Antipope Innocent II

I'll let Chris speak to that, but the analogy isn't that weird IMO. Both Creationists and JMers hold a position that is almost universally rejected by professional scholars. That doesn't mean that both Creationists and JMers are, ipso facto, wrong as we all know, but when I come across a position that sits outside professional scholarly discourse I usually look at who is holding that position and see if they have any ideological axes to grind.

With the Creationists and IDers, that axe is pretty obvious - usually some form of religious fundamentalism (though not in the case of all IDers). With most of the JMers, it's usually some kind of anti-Christian agenda, either by secularists or by New Agers.

Most JMers deny this, but then again most Creationists and IDers insist they are simply pursuing objective science as well.

When there is a group that (i) sits outside mainstream scholarship and (ii) has an ideological motivation for doing so this usually rings warning bells for me. This doesn't mean this group is always wrong or that they may not have a valid position. But for me it gives them a big flashing red light.

Another thing these groups tend to do is make excuses for why mainstream, professional scholarship scorns them:

Given that the professional scholars in the relevant fields associated with the origins of Christianity come from a wide variety of ideological and religious bases (Christians of various stripes, atheists, agnostics, Jews) and hold a bewildering array of views about Jesus and early Christianity, I think it's quite a stretch to think they are united in closing ranks against (most) JMers simply out of annoyance at being "antagonised". The various JMer hypotheses have been on the fringe of professional scholarship for about a century now. Given the fact that these scholars happily disagree about just about everything else you can mention, the idea that they consistently agree to reject the JM idea purely out of spite stretches credulity.

Toto

These are not comparable.

The Creationists and IDers persist in the face of clear proof that they are wrong. It is not just that they are outside the mainstream, they are outside rational inquiry. But there is no clear proof of the existence of a historical Jesus comparable to the proof of the age of the earth, for example.

The JM'ers do not have any uniform set of motives. Tom Harpur is a Christian. Freke and Gandy are neo-pagans. Earl Doherty is a Humanist. Robert Price is a thorough non-believer who speaks to conventions of atheists, but has decided to call himself a Christian and attends an Episcopal Church, because of his appreciation of the ritual.

And anyone pursuaing an anti-Christian agenda would do better to agree that there was a historical Jesus - but state that he was a first century David Koresh, a lunatic with a small following, perhaps, or a Hellenistic wisdom teacher who would clearly disapprove of everything that has been done in his name for the past two millenia.

I posted that quote as a comment on peer review in general. I don't think that there is any coordinated conspiracy against JM'ers by mainstream Biblical scholars. I have observed here that the idea that Jesus did not even exist is very upsetting to some Christians, and I suspect that it's more of a question of the idea not being a good way to get tenure.

My point in posting that quote was to show that sometimes peer review is not a good test of truth until a sufficient time has passed for personal differences to be sifted out of the equation. The lack of "peer review" (if that even exists for Biblical studies) is no reason for anyone here to arbitrarily dismiss the Mythicist hypothesis.

GakuseiDon

I rarely use analogies, for the reason that analogies are never comparable at every point. (If they were, they wouldn't be analogies, they would be practical examples). I think that this is the point that Chris is trying to make. You always end up arguing more about the analogy than the data that the analogy is supposed to shed light on.

Here is a typical example of a Creationist viewpoint: Mainstream scholarship doesn't support creationism, but in fact, if scholars would only look at the data without preconceived ideas, they would find that the data actually supports creationism. But mainstream scholarship is locked into a "non-creationist paradigm", and is therefore unable or unwilling to address mythicism. Some scholars know this, but they are afraid to speak up, since they are afraid of losing their jobs.

To me, this is analogous to some mythicist thinking. It's true, to the point where mythicists will dismiss some scholarship by suggesting that scholars are unable approach data with an open-mind, because they are locked into their mindset.

If you like, there may be analogies to be drawn between creationism and "historicism", and those would be no less true simply because the analogy fails at a particular point. Would you not agree with that?

Good! With that settled, let's get back to the evidence.

We've been over this so many times. There is nothing that says that mythicists have to drop the 800 pound gorilla in one go. There was a thread here earlier, where it was suggested that Earl Doherty publishes parts of his thesis in order to build the background support for his main ideas. These would not meet resistance due to its questioning of a historical Jesus.

As far as I know, none of these positions have been floated by anyone, but Earl uses them in his overall argument:
1. Pagans in Paul's time believed that the earthly myths of their gods were actually performed in a non-earthly location.
2. There exists a version of Ascension of Isaiah that has Satan crucify Jesus, in a non-earthly setting.
3. Tatian was a member of a Christian sect that didn't believe in a historical Jesus.

Toto

Was that his point? I think it was just an insult, and was taken as such.

No, I would not agree. The Creationist viewpoint is not based on standard scientific thinking of any sort; it is a parody or a post-modernist subversion of science, based on what scholars would call "lies.". To compare either mythicism or historicism to Creationism is to deny the scholarship involved in either. It does nothing but raise hackles - look at how Chris responded when I suggested that historicism might be more analogous to Creationism.