FRDB Archives

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.


Go Back   FRDB Archives > Archives > Religion (Closed) > Biblical Criticism & History
Welcome, Peter Kirby.
You last visited: Yesterday at 03:12 PM

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-12-2012, 12:32 PM   #41
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: My own little fantasy world
Posts: 8,911
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
A talking snake is not even entertained, because that is not the claim made by the text.

As it happens, the snake is taken as representative of Satan, and engaged in similar activity as when talking to Jesus.
How is it that the snake is representing Satan? How is Satan communicating through the snake in any way? If you think about it for a moment, you will come to realize that yes, the snake is being depicted as talking. Regardless of whether the snake is speaking on its own behalf or on behalf of Satan or on behalf of the tooth fairy, it is still a snake speaking. Changing who it is speaking for does not change the fact that it is speaking.

Brian
Brian63 is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 03:51 PM   #42
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: England
Posts: 5,629
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Why would biblical scholars or historians bother discussing a work of fiction with an albino assassin, such as Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code?
Why would they bother discussing a work where a character talks to Satan?
Steven Carr is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 03:58 PM   #43
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Carr View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Why would biblical scholars or historians bother discussing a work of fiction with an albino assassin, such as Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code?
Why would they bother discussing a work where a character talks to Satan?
Why not?
sotto voce is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 04:57 PM   #44
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
The difficulty is that scholars do not possess the means of demonstrating that these supernatural events did not occur. So perhaps they are now to be provided with it? Should we hold our breath?
Sotto, quit pretending to be stupid. Basic to scholarship is the notion of methodological naturalism. Of course you know what that is; don't pretend to me you don't. If you adopt methodological naturalism as your stance for inquiring into the past, present, and future, you are a scholar/scientist. Anything else, you're just a propagandist for some ideological position.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 05:19 PM   #45
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: UK
Posts: 3,057
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post
Quote:
The difficulty is that scholars do not possess the means of demonstrating that these supernatural events did not occur. So perhaps they are now to be provided with it? Should we hold our breath?
Sotto, quit pretending to be stupid. Basic to scholarship is the notion of methodological naturalism. Of course you know what that is; don't pretend to me you don't. If you adopt methodological naturalism as your stance for inquiring into the past, present, and future, you are a scholar/scientist. Anything else, you're just a propagandist for some ideological position.
Circularity comes in many forms.
sotto voce is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 06:13 PM   #46
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Japan
Posts: 156
Default

The problem with the supernatural is that it is not rationally coherent, unless you define it simply as that which is not yet explainable — in which case, it is still part of the natural world.
Tenorikuma is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 06:45 PM   #47
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Barrayar
Posts: 11,866
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vorkosigan View Post

Sotto, quit pretending to be stupid. Basic to scholarship is the notion of methodological naturalism. Of course you know what that is; don't pretend to me you don't. If you adopt methodological naturalism as your stance for inquiring into the past, present, and future, you are a scholar/scientist. Anything else, you're just a propagandist for some ideological position.
Circularity comes in many forms.
It's only circular if you are trapped in some ideological fantasy. The beauty of adherence to useful and reliable methodologies based on the stance of methodological naturalism is that they cut through all those fantasies of the supernatural.

Of course, it isn't very pretty if you happen to have a social identity constructed out of some ideologically-driven appeal to innate teleological biases. Like religious believers, for example.
Vorkosigan is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 07:47 PM   #48
Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Los Angeles area
Posts: 40,549
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shadowfox View Post
Why would biblical scholars or historians bother discussing a work of fiction with an albino assassin, such as Dan Brown's novel, The Da Vinci Code?
You might be surprised how many people thought that novel was reality, or hyperreality. Dan Brown himself played it both ways against the middle. For some audiences, he claimed that there was a valid historical basis for the book. When challenged by academic critics, he said it was only a novel.

And, in fact, you can find a number of brand name Biblical scholars with PhD's behind their names who felt the need to publish books on the Da Vinci Code.


E.g. - Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code: A Historian Reveals What We Really Know about Jesus, Mary Magdalene, and Constantine (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Bart Ehrman

The DaVinci Code Controversy (or via: amazon.co.uk)
Toto is offline  
Old 03-12-2012, 09:14 PM   #49
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: seattle, wa
Posts: 9,337
Default

No one is immune to the lure of making a buck. The one thing that strikes you when researching the historical details of an obscure period of history in an even more obscure culture is the eternal appeal of avarice.
stephan huller is offline  
Old 03-13-2012, 01:37 AM   #50
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: San Bernardino, Calif.
Posts: 5,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sotto voce View Post
Now the task of the historian is not to make value judgments about what is possible, and what is not.
A belief about what is possible is not a value judgment.
Doug Shaver is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:57 AM.

Top

This custom BB emulates vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.