Freethought & Rationalism Archive

judge · 05-15-2007, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Fuck naturalism. It's just a word. Try dealing with the concept of inquiry into history by historical method alone. That is all the word was ever meant to convey in the O.P. (This goes for ksen too, who conveniently snips the part that follows after the phrase "methodological naturalism," which would have greatly aided his understanding.)

Historical Method + Nothing Else = Methodological N-word-ism in History. Emphasis on the words method and methodological.

OK that may or may not be the best way to approach it (I tend to think it is very strong but has it's shortcomings).

Others may disagree.

You claim there is some "table" but the very table doesn't even exist.

Peter Kirby · 05-15-2007, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by judge

You claim there is some "table" but the very table doesn't even exist.

No, it's a fiction, a symbol of what would be the place for critical and honest dialogue on the subject of Christian origins.

Riverwind · 05-15-2007, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

When I am cited for my Early Christian Writings website on the Internet, it is typically as "atheist Peter Kirby" or "skeptic Peter Kirby."

I hate that.

I really hate that.

I know why they do it. They do it because...

(1) They believe in the polarity of study...

Welcome to life, Peter.

Everything a Christian says here in these forums is colored similarly. Once one identifies themselves as a Christian, here, there analysis of just about any point is "tainted".

And if you do not believe in the supernatural, Peter, then of course many Christians who do believe in the supernatural will believe that they must add a caveat to your website. It is, rather than "those who are not for me are against me", more like "a caveat must be added to distinguish the scholarship of those who think as I do from the scholarship of those who do not think as I do."

Can you honestly tell us, Peter, that you approach Christians scholarship and secular scholarship the same way? I think not after this thread.

Quote:

(2) They want to impress upon their reader that I "accepted" some fact "against my bias." No, no, no, NO! I accept facts in line with my bias across the board to pursue the historical inquiry by the canons of its method. Whether this suits the proper little pigs that are apologists or not, is really their concern and not mine.

Again, this type of language seems highly atypical for you Peter. How does your calling out "apologists" like this make you look any better?

Quote:

Can you see why someone would be upset at the false and scurrilious notion that it is a parity game all around, that it is apologetics all the way down, and so that we have to bow with respect to those whose explicit commitments demand that they adhere to certain particular statements concerning the subject, which it would otherwise--otherwise, since it is not--be their solemn purpose to pursue through the avenues of historical inquiry, and historical inquiry alone?

I would be very surprised if, after you cool off, you don't realize that this sword cuts both ways. From the "faith-side", I have been on the receiving end of it many times.

Quote:

I'd like to echo Renan's dictum once again. The best researchers maintain a sympathy with their subject that stops short of a confession of faith in the major tenets of historical dogma.

One cannot believe in nothing. Whatever your faith about this world and how we fit into it, it colors how you receive and interpret the data with respect to history, especially Biblical history.

Quote:

They can be reverent agnostics such as Michael Goulder, pious Gnostics such as Elaine Pagels, or thoroughgoing Christians such as J.D. Crossan and Marcus Borg--but please, not fulsome apologists or stalwart, intransigent doctrinalists. These last have excluded themselves at the outset from the possibility of genuine historical inquiry into Christian origins.

False, and you know it, Peter. Something or someone has yanked your chain. I suggest you take a break. I can't see you blending into the militant atheist slime. Being more thoughtful than this is what you were known for. Do you really want to be known by rhetoric like this? Please...take a break.

Layman · 05-15-2007, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

No, it's a fiction, a symbol of what would be the place for critical and honest dialogue on the subject of Christian origins.

Well let us flesh out what that would look like.

If you were editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature or New Testament Studies, you would refuse to publish any articles or reviews from the likes of N.T. Wright, Craig Evans, John P. Meier, and Gordon Fee?

Would all members of dogmatic sects simply be banned from contributing or would they have to fill out a form pledging faith in Kirby's methodological naturalistic creed as the only proper way to conduct history? Perhaps they could simply sign an affidavit stating that there is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead or performed miracles or was the son of God?

Would this ban apply to Jewish scholars who do not share the Christian bias but who may believe that God has acted in Jewish history?

Should Infidels ban apologists and dogmatic Christians from contributing to this forum?

Are you going to ban comments on your Christian Origins website by apologists and dogmatic Christians? Perhaps you could have some sort of registration form declaring the resurrection to be a later Christian development before anyone could leave a comment?

Maybe we could just have separate water fount . . . I mean separate forums for Christians who want to discuss history and another for everyone else?

Apikorus · 05-15-2007, 07:42 PM

Back of the bus for you, Layman!

The question posed by Peter is similar to that posed by spin in the thread What may be wrong with Christian biblical scholarship?. spin links to a provocative opinion piece by Hebrew Bible scholar Michael Fox: Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study: My View, as well as to some responses to Fox's piece.

Layman · 05-15-2007, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apikorus

Back of the bus for you, Layman!

Best line of the thread.

Isn't there a difference between thinking it is problematic that a "faith-based" perspective has come to dominate the field and saying that no one who is a "dogmatic" Christian should be allowed to participate in the discussion?

Riverwind · 05-15-2007, 08:09 PM

I can mostly agree with that article. It's claims got me to thinking however...

scholarship = secular?

Why must historical and linguistic scholarship, which are called a sciences (but are really a form of art), adopt a purely secular worldview?

I am beginning to change my own mind. Why must I be forced to see things through a the lens of a "secular worldview"? If I do so, then will I not ultimately find a "secular worldview"? If I follow naturalistic views and deny even the possibility of miracles, then won't my findings be purely naturalistic?

Can one really do history this way and discover anything other than what they expected? The more I think on this, the more it bothers me.

On some level it seems that faith and scholarship can be separated, but then why should they be? Perhaps my faith should color my findings just as a secularist's views will color their own findings? Maybe there should be secularist history, Christian history, Islamic History, Hindu history, etc....because we will all come to different conclusions about what the data says.

Hmm...thought I had this issue mostly figured out...back to the blasted drawing board...

aa5874 · 05-15-2007, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

On some level it seems that faith and scholarship can be separated, but then why should they be? Perhaps my faith should color my findings just as a secularist's views will color their own findings? Maybe there should be secularist history, Christian history, Islamic History, Hindu history, etc....because we will all come to different conclusions about what the data says.

Hmm...thought I had this issue mostly figured out...back to the blasted drawing board...

Again, some views are biased towards evidence and some views are biased towards faith.

Riverwind · 05-15-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Again, some views are biased towards evidence and some views are biased towards faith.

Whether that faith is in a naturalistic worldview or a Christian worldview...

Sauron · 05-15-2007, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solitary Man

Instead of repeating yourself, why not show how it is logically consistent?

No need to. You were the first one to claim it was logically inconsistent. Your claim, your homework. Burden of proof lies on you, not me.

Quote:

Fine. Accepted. But still you've not accounted for the thousands of ex-inerrantists who are still Christians.

I don't have to account for them. I limited my comments to a subset. A point you've missed three times now.

Quote:

No, you just have no clue what you're talking about. But by all means, continue rambling.

I know far more about it than you do.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-15-2007, 07:42 PM	#55
Apikorus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,396	Back of the bus for you, Layman! The question posed by Peter is similar to that posed by spin in the thread What may be wrong with Christian biblical scholarship?. spin links to a provocative opinion piece by Hebrew Bible scholar Michael Fox: Bible Scholarship and Faith-Based Study: My View, as well as to some responses to Fox's piece.

05-15-2007, 08:09 PM	#57
Riverwind Banned Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Allen, Tx Posts: 604	I can mostly agree with that article. It's claims got me to thinking however... scholarship = secular? Why must historical and linguistic scholarship, which are called a sciences (but are really a form of art), adopt a purely secular worldview? I am beginning to change my own mind. Why must I be forced to see things through a the lens of a "secular worldview"? If I do so, then will I not ultimately find a "secular worldview"? If I follow naturalistic views and deny even the possibility of miracles, then won't my findings be purely naturalistic? Can one really do history this way and discover anything other than what they expected? The more I think on this, the more it bothers me. On some level it seems that faith and scholarship can be separated, but then why should they be? Perhaps my faith should color my findings just as a secularist's views will color their own findings? Maybe there should be secularist history, Christian history, Islamic History, Hindu history, etc....because we will all come to different conclusions about what the data says. Hmm...thought I had this issue mostly figured out...back to the blasted drawing board...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.