youngalexander

In that thread, in response to a similar proposition to that of the OP, I sed this

This is, to say the least, somewhat confused.

Evolution is a scientific theory, which means that it provides a natural explanation of observed phenomena. The amount of observation is massive, and the agreement is overwhelming. There is no other scientific theory which provides an alternative explanation of the observations. Like other scientific theories it provides a detailed mechanism whereby the observed phenomena occur. In addition, it provides predictions of further observations which can be tested. An essential feature of a scientific theory is that it is falsifiable. Evolution has faced and passed tests of falsifiability since its inception, and continues to do so.

Creationism, including its latest manifestation IDC, is not science. It fails in at least two essential criteria. It provides no explanation of the observed phenomena other than positing that a Creator was responsible. It provides no mechanism whereby phenomena occur. As a consequence of this it makes no predictions and cannot be falsified.

Perhaps an example to illustrate:
Evolution posits that humans and chimpanzees have a recent (in evolutionary terms) common ancestor and that as a consequence we would expect that a very high percentage of the genome would be the same. Evolution lives or dies by this prediction. If the genomes were entirely dissimilar evolution would be in deep trouble.

IDC makes no prediction. Whether the genomes are similar or entirely distinct makes not one whit of difference to 'godidit'. God could presumably do it in any way that was convenient.

Evolution is science. IDC is religion, regardless of how it is dressed up. They are not the same discipline.

Contrast this with the alternatives HJ/MJ.
The essential point is that they are both historical theories. Unless someone is prepared to argue that this is not the case, there is simply no comparison with E/C!

HJ/MJ argue the same evidence, with the same methods in the same discipline. E argues all the evidence, C argues only a minute fraction of the evidence; E employs scientific methodology, C does not; E & C are not the same discipline.

The question of 'vast majority' of professionals supporting E or HJ is a furphy. MJ is in principle capable of persuading upon the balance of probabilities after examination of the historical evidence. Whether it does so is another matter. C is not in principle capable of overturning evolution, because it ain't science.

A more direct analogy for E/C in the historical debate is H/S, ie. history/supernatural. Indeed, from time to time (& currently) there are those who will argue for the veracity of 'miracles' at BC&H. Again, most would reject S for the same reason that science rejects C.

I am not directing this to Ecrasez L'infame who is genuinely interested in the question, but rather to the likes of Chris Weimer who seems somewhat obtuse, given the previous discussion.
HJ/MJ is an intra-disciplinary debate. I think that it rather poor form to attempt to win that debate by drawing false analogies with E/C, and thereby hoping to provide guilt by association. It would be a poor lookout if such debates were to be decided upon the basis of such a false analogy.

Chris Weimer

I don't know, but there are hundreds of articles and scores of books on the subject.

aa5874

So does a person have the right to be wise? And who determines wisdom or foolishness?

Ecrasez L'infame

Bugger. I'd hoped there was more.

Ecrasez L'infame

There's lots of convincing points in everyone's replies, about how the analogy breaks down - the nature and quality of the evidence, the alleged vested interests of the experts, what the theories' status as "theory" even is in the two disciplines - but if you don't know any of that, then you're just falling back on the argument from authority - only now, the authority of those who say the two aren't analogous. But it seems to me that Alex in the above snip has a difference which grasps the different logical form of MJ and Creationism: HJ/MJ is a debate among scholars, ie within the same group of people; Evolution/ Creationism is a debate between two groups of people, scientists and people who are not only non-scientists, but anti-science. Mythicists want to have their case accepted by the majority. Creationists want to replace the majority. Mythicists, when they lose a point, go back to their books and try and do better next time. Creationists argue the same point again, louder. Mythicists are interested in the truth - they really want to know what happened, and can change their mind. Creationists aren't really interested in Evolution, biology, science or truth - it's just a sideshow, a way of pushing their real agenda, religion. In short, as Alex says, Jesus's existence is an intra-disciplinary issue, the origin of species an inter-.

Well, I think all the above is true... but I still have this nagging doubt that it's special pleading...

Just out of interest, do HJ'ers on this board say that, even though they think MJ is wrong, the debate is still worth having? I guess Chris W is the test case here...

Jack the Bodiless

Perhaps I should have worded that better. What I meant was: unless the experts are systematically lying about the evidence for evolution, then the evidence itself is compelling to me. I don't have to simply accept their judgement that the evidence is compelling to them.

Whereas neither the HJ nor the MJ camps have provided evidence that is compelling to me (regardless of their own opinions on the matter).

Furthermore, it isn't a black-or-white issue like evolution/creation. Evolution is true, creationism is false. But it's entirely possible that the gospels are pretty much entirely fictional BUT a real guy existed.

doctorzb

I think the most telling thing is that the JMers of all stripes can't seem to convince the professionals to the degree that they get published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals.

I also see a fair amount creationist-like rhetoric from the JM crowd, such as asserting that the HJ scholars are blinded by their personal beliefs and are intellectually dishonest. It's all just a big conspiracy to keep them down!

I find it extremely suspicious that he is talking about the Jesus of the Gospels because he mentions practically no details. I still am HJ because this does not explain Mark, and the "Mark is constructed from the OT because certain passages have extremely slight resemblences" seems silly, and from the text I don't get the impression Mark is just making stuff up--In short, a living minor leader of some kind is not an extraordinary claim, so I accept it by default until I have compelling reasons not to.

Gregg

I'm sorry it sounds this way to you. It literally pains me to be thought of in this way, because I have savaged conspiracy theorists mercilessly in the past and I still do. I hate to be thought of as one of "those." But I'm not saying that what's going on with the MJ thing is a conscious "conspiracy," and I don't think many other MJers are saying this either (although some of them probably are). It's just individuals taking the same attitude you are now, but with a lot more added baggage.

It is not "certain passages have extremely slight resemblances" doctorzb. You need to do more research. It's passage after passage after passage, and the resemblances are not "extremely slight." The crucifixion can be reconstructed blow by blow from the Jewish scriptures.

Also, it's important to understand that Mark is not just "making things up" for the purpose of fooling people. His writing has a purpose, to explain the beliefs of his community, to provide a teaching and liturgical tool.

squiz

Robert Price has expressed agnosticism on whether there was an HJ in his book "The DaVinci Hoax" and perhaps in other places.

What is his standing as a scholar?

Malachi151

Clearly I think that one major difference is that there are so many quacks and total idiots on HJ side of the issue.

This is very much unlike the evolution issue.

When it comes to biological evolution, the vast majority of scholars in the field who accept and support biological evolution are rational people who hold to a consensus view of biology itself who demonstrate knowledge of the subject, etc., and most of the lay people who accept evolution are more rational and educated than those who do not.

On the other hand, the HJ group is there among the idiots.

Most people believe in HJ, and this includes your followers of Binny Hinn, Peter Popoff, and Jimmy Baker.

The majority of people who accept biological evolution do so not simply because the authorities say yes, but because the basic explanation makes sense and has explanatory power. They average person may not very each bit of data, but if you accept the data at face value they explanation is logical and provides a framework that people can use to make sense of the world.

The majority of people who believe that Jesus existed, however, do so on faith, and have never even been exposed to any facts on the matter. They simply accept it from cultural weight.

If someone reviews the types of facts that I have laid out in my article and still rejects the idea that Jesus never existed then that's fine, but 99% of the believe public has never been exposed to the relevant facts in the first place. The non-existence of Jesus is something that they have never even been exposed to.

The majority of people who believe that Jesus existed are irrational people who have also never even been exposed to the facts of the matter, and have no education that would be needed to even make judgments about the issue. Furthermore, the institutions to which they people look for authority or belong to to everything they can to shield their followers from the types of information presented by those like Doherty or myself, and furthermore, none of the vested interests provide their followers with a legitimate background to be able to make reasonable judgments about this matter.

It's not as if Sunday schools sit down with their congregations and give then an unbiased education in 1st century comparative religion, review variations of Jewish interpretation of the scriptures, go over alternate views on the origin of the gospels, go into textual criticism, address other apocalyptic Jewish writings from around the Christian period, etc.

The same people who claim that the earth is 6,000 years old and that Noah saved all the animals are the same people who adamantly defend the historical existence of Jesus.

The overwhelming majority of the defenses of the existence of Jesus and the historical reliability of the gospels are totally bullshit, and are totally un-scholarly.

Then you have a small handful, like those by J.P. Meier, which are scholarly, but obviously admit of a greatly diminished view of both Jesus and the Gospels.

Unlike biological evolution, as I said in my other post that was never addressed, there is no consensus on who historical Jesus was or the historical reliability of the Gospels. The views are all over the map.

When did historical Jesus because verified and justifiability known to exist?

What is the evidence and case for historical Jesus?

You will get different answers for every scholar on these questions. We can look back at the "proofs" that the early Christians offered for the existence of Jesus and plainly see that they are wrong or insufficient, so even the people in the 2nd century couldn't show that he existed. When did this become established?

Clearly scholarship has shown that virtually everything people thought about Jesus and the Gospels from the 2nd century to the 19th century was wrong, so when was the correct view established?