Peter Kirby

Owen Edwards writes, "When a chap like Peter Kirby (indeed, even Richard Dawkins!) implicitly accepts the existence of a religious leader called Jesus, I'm fairly happy that the majority of respected scholars accept likely historicity." (link)

Chris Price writes, "As for the historical value of Acts, I understand that you refuse to consider my arguments on the subject because I am a Christian, but perhaps you should read Peter Kirby, atheist architect of earlychristianwritings.com, who helpfully provides this devestating rebuttal of Vernon Robbins theory on Acts." (link)

Apparently, my defining bias in investigating Christian origins is atheisme, the doctrine that there is no God.

I disagree, and so do the facts.

How can atheism be the defining bias of someone who spent a good part of his later teens arguing stridently against Mythicists, and not engaging the errors of Christians?

How can atheism be the defining bias of someone who is, as Chris notes, the architect of Early Christian Writings, which regularly receives fanmail asking whether I am a Protestant or a Catholic or a Christian of some type?

How can atheism be the defining bias of someone who wants deeply in his heart of hearts for Christianity to be true, as seen from his recent conversion thread on IIDB and blogged about?

No, atheism is not my defining bias in Christian origins, not by a longshot. My biases are darker.

In this thread I unearthed some of my biases:

- a tendency to hedge bets
- a quest for clarity in the midst of ambiguity

...to which can be added...

- a respect for great books and developed arguments
- a desire to be respected as a fair critic
- a seeking after methods which anyone can access
- a penchant for metaphorical language, in my own writing and my reading
- a facility with the computer, sometimes abused (such as in detecting 'styles')

If these are my seven detectable biases, where would they push someone on, say, the existence of Jesus?

- a tendency to hedge bets

The existence of Jesus is commonly thought of as a safe bet, so this might apply in favor of HJ, certainly not against. HJ: 1, MJ: 0

- a quest for clarity in the midst of ambiguity

To my mind, more questions are opened up by positing the existence of Jesus than are actually clarified, while on the other hand the two mythicist models with which I am most familiar are clarifying almost to a fault (Doherty, Wells). So HJ: 1, MJ: 1.

- a respect for great books and developed arguments

This is perhaps my greatest bias, and clearly favors the HJ. Nobody has ever made so much of a Ph.D. thesis out of the nonexistence of Jesus. HJ: 2, MJ: 1

- a desire to be respected as a fair critic

No doubt an atheist will only be regarded as 'fair' if he declares positively the existence of Jesus, and so the quotes above show this to be a bias in favor of declaring the HJ. HJ: 3, MJ: 1.

- a seeking after methods anyone can access

These methods have not actually been found, so, no point.

- a penchant for metaphorical language, in my own writing and my reading

Plenty is found in both HJ and MJ writers, perhaps more in HJ writers even though ostensibly the MJ writers are dealing more in the realm of the metaphorical. No point.

- a facility with the computer, sometimes abused

I have yet to turn a machine on to the question of the existence of Jesus. No point.

Based on these detectable and discernable biases in my character, I conclude that...

I am biased in favor of declaring positively on the historicity of Jesus.

I would therefore ask that all further citations of my opinion be prefaced with, "even though" or "just as" I am biased to declare positively on the historicity of Jesus, and not give the implication that I am not because I am atheist.

Just to be clear on the record, I am at present an Aristotelian Deist and a Jesus Christ mythicist, though I may hold out for the possibility some Q Jesus or other type of Jesus in history, yet the important Jesus--the Jesus of Christian faith--did not exist. So both points of the argument ("Gasp! An atheist believes in Jesus!") are now incorrect as premises.

Ted Hoffman

Am I the only one who is confused? Are you trying to show that whereas you have been a HJ advocate in the past, you have now shifted camp?

Peter Kirby

In this post, I am saying how my bias favors an HJ.

I am also saying that I have gone against my bias in not saying HJ.

I am also saying, further, that I was in line with my bias when I said HJ.

Finally, I am saying something about biases that is lost on the average reader--that the nomers of Christian and atheist are not enough, not at all, to get a sense of a person's biases.

PS-- I say there is no historical Jesus in the same sense as there is no historical Santa; there is, however, the possibility of some etiological origin in a particular man's name.

PPS-- I hate camps.

hatsoff

Why are you likened to Richard Dawkins and called a "respected scholar"? You are respected--at least, I respect you--but aren't you just a college student with a website?

Peter Kirby

No idea really, and yes.

-Jay-

It's admirable (and rare) that one is able and willing to dissect one's character the way you have, Peter - moreso because you're willing to take the difficult (for some, impossible) step of acting against your biases when necessary. Would that more people would do what you've done.

Camps (or labels) can be somewhat useful as first-order approximations. Their utility declines rapidly as they accumulate connotations beyond their strict definitions. Unfortunately, our (American) society seems to have latched onto an either/or paradigm that attempts to make such labels much more relevant than they really are.

regards,

NinJay

wordy

Peter, are you not one of the most qualified to expand on ApostateAbe's suggestion that gods are ideas. Or maybe the other way around. Ideas has the power to makes the ideas of gods come alive in the mind of the holders of such ideas and thus gods kind of emerge as a felt relation within the believer.

Man creates gods by first entertaining the concepts of intelligent agents behind events and from that condition the body and it's brain feeling cognitive dissonance creates a solution to that dissonance and the whole HJ vs MJ debate is then a result of this struggle to maintain a lesser degree of cognitive dissonance. Those who are resistant to high doses of CD endure Mythical Jesus while those very sensitive to any CD are vulnerable to a HJ solution. They long for Jesus to have actually have existed outside of the world of ideas. So they "rationalize" such a world that makes a HJ possible. Them tweaking any historic event to confirm a HJ. While people satisfied with MJ find that plausible enough.

Some say that ideas creating gods is a too trivial way of looking at it but I find it rather convincing. Sure a kind of truism but could be the best explanation.

I base it on OCD research. These conditions show that some are vulnerable to strange feelings of being forced to do things that others find crazy.

To relate to an idea as if it is a real live person seems very strange to most of us. Only kids and very few kids at that engage in such utterly childish behaviors. Imaginary Friends is such an obvious cheating on reality. Why don't they see through their own make believe we ask. Cause they are covering a cognitive dissonance and such have the capacity to hide that it is covering up for a lie. They have no way of knowing? To them it feels very real. Until they lose faith in gods.

What do you say? Is it possible for ideas to become as if real.

BBC link to a text on OCD http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4900456.stm

I find a link here to those hyperactive in solving every little crack in their cognitive dissonance. It feels wrong to them to be unsure of if Jesus is a real human being that was God incarnated. They feel like getting it wrong and to be blamed for not whole heartedly trusting the myth to be true. It is a theory I have. Fundies being somewhat close to but not actual OCD personalities. They are obsessed with getting it right, their world is black and white, no openness for myth to be socially true but not factually true. Such creates a nagging cognitive dissonance within them that has to be resolved.

Riverwind

Peter, do you really have no idea why you would be referred to like this, even after other threads?

You have identified yourself as atheist (at least in the past...not sure about now because you have claimed more than one belief over the past month - in an effort to shake this labelling you see and abhor?). If you are not a Christian (and for some, if you are not their brand of Christian), you will be labled. It is a caveat to other believers to be wary that you do not approach the Bible in the same way that they do.

Do you, or do you not, approach the Bible from a naturalistic worldview where miracles likely do not happen, etc..

These labels will discourage some from reading you and encourage others to use a "filter" when reading you. Is this a bad thing? Is this not what you do when reading Christian scholars? It seems that the other thread you brought up says that you do (or at least that you did until that thread).

Doug Shaver

It depends on what the filter is filtering out.

No Robots

So I guess you are repudiating this:

I turn to the one called Wonderful, Counselor, Prince of Peace. And I say the prayer, "I need you."