No Robots

And whether Daoist alchemy works?

Peter Kirby

This is one of the very attitudes that I seek to correct.

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, outlined much as in the quote above. "Those who are not for me are against me," as the saying goes. Can I ask, WHAT THE FUCK? What the fuck? If I didn't believe that King Arthur would be coming again to rule Britain as his kingdom, if I didn't approach the subject as a Arthurian in other words, am I then an anti-Arthurian? Can we really not win?

(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.

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'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. 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.

mountainman

Which table?

Peter Kirby

The round table. Unless you'd prefer a square one?

judge

So, can one be sympathetic to naturalism without confessing it as dogma?

Solitary Man

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

Fine. Accepted. But still you've not accounted for the thousands of ex-inerrantists who are still Christians. Please, by all means, explain yourself.

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

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.

Solitary Man

Pre-emptively.

There were no Hebrews in Egypt-->
The bible isn't 100% inerrant -->

This doesn't follow. A literal stance on the Hebrews in Egypt isn't the only exegetical reading.

There are mistakes in the bible -->

Only if you accept a priori that the Bible must be read literally. For some, that is not a problem.

But I'm basing my life on the bible -->

The Bible only? And what part of the Bible?

Maybe there are mistakes in the gospels -->

Maybe? But that doesn't follow the proceding sentence.

What if the gospels aren't correct -->

What if you're trapped in a coccoon and everything else is merely neuro-stimulation provided to you by robots intending to harvest mankind for energy?

What if Jesus' words aren't properly transmitted -->

What if they are? How would you know?

What if I'm believing a mistake -->

What if, what if, what if???

What if I'm believing a LOT of mistakes -->

More what ifs?

How can I trust anything anymore?

By stop playing with hypothetical situations and deal with facts.

None of this is logically consistent. There's no logic at all to this statement. Perhaps your deconversion was a lot less logical than you thought at the time? Or perhaps you're still a solipsist?

What if science is wrong? What if everything is an illusion? How can you trust anything?

It's so absurd, it's retarded.

Layman

Because I have no place at your table due to my inherent corruption, I take it you will be taking down the four articles by Chris Price (#1, #2, #3, #4)on your website (ironically named--as it turns out--(christianorigins.com)? Pity. If I remember correctly, you were the one to first ask me if you could host some of my writings. You were still the "atheist Peter Kirby" at the time, but despite that you were more interested in informed discussion than in being the self-styled host in charge of seating at an exclusive dinner party.

aa5874

Some are biased to evidence, while some are biased to faith.