dystopian

This is, frankly, an absurd analogy. Our understanding of natural selection isn't some sort of dogmatic position that has been considered unquestionable for 1700+ years.

This is a naieve view. We are all influenced by the past, and the ideas and beliefs that have been considered absolute truth for nearly two millenia. It has influenced everything about our societies, and I find it hard to understand why someone would think it *hasn't* tainted the well. Indeed, I see it reflected in the way those who would deny Jesus was a real figure are ridiculed for such skepticism. To most people; scholars and laypeople alike, those of faith and those without; it is considered so obviously true that to question it doesn't even occur to them. Perhaps unsurprisingly, you yourself have demonstrated this behaviour in this very thread. I do not claim to know whether Jesus actually existed in some form, or if he is en entirely fictional construct by Paul or whatever the theory might be. I do know, however, that it is absurd to ridicule those who bring up reasonable doubts, questioning the traditional view by way of proper skepticism. If any view should be ridiculed, it is the idea that we should not question these things.

I know of no such scholarly concensus. Perhaps amongst biblical scholars, but their views should obviously be taken with a grain of salt.

Logical

I never claimed to have names or to be an expert (I stated the opposite). I've seen sources, such as Wikipedia and Ehrman, stating that the scholarly consensus among liberal Bible scholars is that Jesus was a historical figure. I don't have their names though. If my statement is wrong, let me know and I stand corrected.

Logical

No. An argument from "baseless accusation".

Bart Ehrman.

An argument from personal incredulity?

Logical

Critical/historical Biblical studies in the modern sense have not been around for 1700+ years.

The analogy is relevant because in every field, you will find well-established constructs that are seldom questioned. That doesn't imply dogma or closed-mindedness. It just means the issues have been covered fully and thoroughly and the experts in the field have no desire to entertain repeated challenges to it. After a while, even the attempts to challenge said views become repetitive and recycled, having been answered over and over.

For instance, I really doubt any NASA scientist is willing to spend any time considering flat-earth theories. Does that make him or her dogmatic?

trendkill

Well, yes, but mostly they accept the scientific consensus on things. Scientific authority is validated by trust in the methods of science. However, you will rarely find atheists (or anyone else, actually) who defer to the consensus of philosophers, for example. I don't know if historians are the type of experts that you can expect atheists as a rule to defer to. I personally think there was probably a historical basis for Jesus because it seems like common sense and I'm aware that the scholarly consensus backs that up, but I don't know much of anything about the historical method or how historians work, so maybe those who do will have a different view.

That said, it does seem like quite a coincidence that such a fringe theory has become so popular among those who it is ideologically congenial. I'm inclined to compare it to 9/11 Truthism; not to say that it's inherently conspiracist, but just that the most plausible explanation for it is ideological bias and not reason.

Juma

The difference: testability. The subject of biology and climatology is there to be probed, history is... history.

OLDMAN

This!


Oddly enough the most compelling reason I find to believe in HJ is the fact that so many of the facts are wrong. If the story were simply fiction, they would have simply written it correctly in the first place. I think Chris Higgins said it better somewhere on u-tube, but can't find the link.

The problem with accepting HJ is what part of the story is accurate and which is pure fabrication? And in the end what difference does it really make, if HJ was or wasn't based on an unknown messiah figure who didn't get recognized by the historians of the day?

dx713

This.
I've never met someone not engaging in Christian apologetics who didn't accept the NT Jesus character as a mythical character (or if the term "mythical" grates you the wrong way, "conceptual character", to use Deleuze's terms), in the same way that there's no way of knowing if the Socrates character of Plato has any relevance to the historical Socrates.
Then, as an atheist, it's difficult not to think that someone who engages to much energy in trying to reconcile some unknown preacher named Jesus with the NT character must have some religious agenda...

dystopian

Of course not. Because you used to get burned at the stake for applying criticial thinking to the question of whether Jesus existed or not. Did that point go completely over your head? The whole question is burdened by the immense inertia of 1700+ years of society chanting the existence of jesus as fact.

Thereby proving the analogy is *irrelevant* because none of what you just said is even remotely the case here. Questioning whether Jesus existed at all is almost exclusively a modern phenomenon that has been made possible solely due to the increased secularization of society. The claim that Jesus was a historical figure has NOT gone through the rigorous scientific back and forth that is the case for any scientific concensus. If there exists a concensus on the matter amongst society or theologians, such a concensus is based on no more than "Jesus must've existed because this is common knowledge. And it is common knowledge because we've been saying it's true for 1700 or so years."

You can *not* compare the claim that Jesus was a historical figure to our understanding of the earth's shape. One is based on nothing more than either faith, inertia of opinion or arguments which many find lacking in evidence. The other is based on actual observations and science.

Again, I am unconvinced either way. Maybe there was some actual person who then became the basis for the story. Maybe not. But I get annoyed by the tendency of people to just assume there was without any real evidence. I also get tired of the claim that there is some sort of scholarly concensus on it too. I don't know that there is, and it sounds an awful lot like a creationist claiming that there is a controversy amongst scientists (or even that there is now a concensus that evolution is false, among scientists, as I've heard some creationists claim from time to time).

If there is such a concensus, I would contend that it is one formed out of tradition and not out of genuine skeptical inquiry into the question, given that skepticism of the central claim has only relatively recently become socially acceptable (or even legal, for some people). And if a concensus isn't formed out of genuine skeptical debate and inquiry, then I don't think it's very valuable.

Stacey Melissa

Mod note: Thread moved from PA&SA to BCH.

Stacey Melissa
PA&SA Moderator