Freethought & Rationalism Archive

gurugeorge · 05-16-2007, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riverwind

You and Sauron put a lot of faith in the "laws of physics". As an engineer, I don't see things as quite the solid foundation that you do. Besides, you say that the laws don't care about religion and that is true enough, but what created these so called laws? Why do they exist? What caused them? You don't know. You merely have faith in them. I feel that people who talk like you and Sauron have never really examined these things in the kind of detail that great philosophical thinkers have done.

"Foundations" and "certainty" are kind of irrelevant. The point is that the game of doing history just is that particular game in which normal physical laws and stuff are accepted as the background. If you don't accept that background, you can't be doing history. The concept of historical evidence alone demands the usual physical persistence of objects through time.

Any kind of supernatural vision is totally opposed to this: as soon as you admit a supernatural element in the world "all bets are off". You cannot rely on the physicality of the world any more, for you have no way of knowing if and when a supernatural element may have intruded at some historical point you are interested in or investigating. It's not that you have to accept that some supernatural element has intruded, it's that you have no way of knowing if it has or it hasn't, so therefore you can't simply accept the plain physical story the historian cheerfully accepts as background to his investigations.

Layman · 05-16-2007, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sauron

Laying it on a little thick, aren't you?

I don't think anyone would accuse Peter of blocking or excluding people who want to participate in research or investigation - assuming that is what they really want to do, and not push an agenda.

And your tactic above - mentioning obviously outlandish or offensive ideas in proximity to Peter Kirby's name, hoping that some of the dirt will stick in people's minds - that's rather slimy.

The "tactic" is to try and understand what Peter says when he claims dogmatic Christians should have "no place at the table" when it comes to the studies of Christian origins. Since the journals I mentioned are devoted to such studies, it is not unreasonable to ask whether--if left to him--he would exclude such scholars from that table. He mentioned N.T. Wright, I believe, first. So I asked about N.T. Wright and other scholars who are self-professed orthodox Christians. So if N.T. Wright has "no place at the table" of studying Christian Origins, what does that mean? Why is it unreasonable for me to ask if that includes other members of the clergy, such as J.P. Meier, who are noted scholars in this field? What is the table? How would Peter keep them from that table, if left to him?

Those are fair questions. Peter seems to be saying much more than that dogmatic Christians have too much influence in the study of Christian origins or that we should scrutinize their work more carefully. Rather, he is saying that they have NO place in such studies to begin with.

Any "thickness" being laid on is intended to detect the outer contours of Peter's proposal. I'm not accusing Peter of doing anything to make this happen because Peter and I both know that he lacks that power. But what does he mean and what would a scholarly community devoted to the study of Christian Origins in which the likes of N.T. Wright are kept from the table look like?

Layman · 05-16-2007, 09:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

This is all very bizarre.

I think Peter has been pretty clear about the sort of Christian he's objecting to: those with a dogmatic faith in the "truth" of the Bible (i.e. inerrantists). Yet here I keep seeing Christians who I thought were "liberals" self-identifying with this group and imagining that Peter wants THEM excluded...

N.T. Wright is an advocate of inerrancy?

News should be spread because he's caught flack from "the right" for not defending that doctrine.

Perhaps the problem here is one of simply understanding the contours of the group Kirby would like to target for exclusion.

No Robots · 05-16-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

Doctrinal Christians are those who have an a priori (relative to the subject matter of historical investigations of the beginnings of the Christian religion) commitment to the truth of certain doctrines about Christian origins, where those doctrines may range from the historical existence of Jesus, to the bodily resurrection of Jesus, all the way to the full inerrancy of the King James Bible.

Quote:

doctrinal Christians have no place at the table until and unless they have shed all their peculiar doctrines of faith concerning the subject, and thus cease to be doctrinal Christians.

It seems that no one who affirms the historicity of Christ is to be allowed a place at this table. It would be a pretty small and weird confrérie.

Layman · 05-16-2007, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Chris Price: You know that I like you.

Glad to hear that and I didn't really doubt it, but that's not really the issue in this thread. We could like each other fine but you could still think my writings--as the product of a dogmatic mind--had no place at the table. After all, I admit I am a biased participant in the discussion. I also feel obligated, however, to make arguments I genuinely believe are persuasive and based on the evidence.

I once asked you who Sid Green was after reading some of his material on your site. You answered that he was someone who preferred to be evaluated on the basis of his arguments rather than his personal biography. I took that to mean that Christian Origins was a clearing house for at least somewhat articulate proponents of different perspectives--including Christian ones--on the issue of Christian Origins. What you seemed to be advocating here, in how I understood it, was contrary to that idea.

Roger Pearse · 05-16-2007, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jack the Bodiless

I think Peter has been pretty clear about the sort of Christian he's objecting to: those with a dogmatic faith in the "truth" of the Bible (i.e. inerrantists).

I.e., people like me.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse · 05-16-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gurugeorge

It's an absurd point. As if Christianity weren't something that has affected us all, historically and in the present!

Any thinking human being, whatever their intellectual biases and preferences, is perfectly justified in having an interest in the origins of this sect that (for better or worse) has had such a powerful influence on world affairs.

While true, this is some way from the point made. And why on earth would people uninvolved in a subject want to be doing it all anyway? I can imagine nothing more tedious.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

dongiovanni1976x · 05-16-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

In the words of Pilate, "what I have written, I have written." You want to pretend that you have a Socratic method of cutting past what I have written, by posing an "unanswered" question. I will answer it for the n-th time. Historical method will uncover history. If that history coincides with the truth of the Bible, then such will be the case. Your erstwhile inability to understand that answer is astounding. Perhaps doctrinal Christians not only have difficulty applying historical method in this subject, but grave difficulty understanding the concept of historical method and the aim of history generally. But to judge from one sad case is dangerous.

I will make a last-ditch effort to aid your understanding. The aim of Biblical Criticism & History is not to find "the Bible is true" or "the Bible is false." It is to engage in biblical criticism and to do biblical history. And of course, any commitment to "the Bible is true" across the board will impede such because it proscribes certain avenues of thought that are naturally part of the endeavor. I would say the same of any commitment to "the Bible is false" across the board, except that I have not encountered a person with an a priori commitment to the Bible being false across the board.

"But can you prove the Bible true? Huh? Huh? Can ya? Can ya? Huh? Huh?"

You are the one who misses the point. The point is that your commitment to that proposition "the Bible is true" gives you blinders. Now, perhaps (!) the methods of human understanding and reason are incapable of showing the proposition that "the Bible is true." How much more fucked up would it be to believe it then?

I put the (!) there because the methods of human understanding and reason do allow us to broach your proposition of "The Bible is true," though perhaps not more woolly ones. We can evaluate those claims such as the historical existence of Noah, etc. And if we are not convinced by a blind faith in the Bible that there was a Noah, and that Jonah did swallow the whale if the Bible so declares, we might find that there was no historical Noah, etc. Yet, it would be no skin of my teeth if there were a Noah. The problem is entirely in the court of the believers, whose beliefs interfere with sound judgment and reasoning.

I have to elaborate at this length because Steven doesn't get the simple truth that what history uncovers, it uncovers. I understand. He's a doctrinal Christianist.

If it is necessary to posit the conclusion in order to prove the conclusion then you are building Castles in the Sky. The historical method, when applied properly, is an INDUCTIVE process as Peter is trying to state. As time goes on and more specific facts are collected, then it is FROM these facts that general conclusions can be drawn and tested etc. To start with such general conclusions in mid-air in order to uncover truths about the specific facts on the ground before you is just bad methodology. Something that presuppositionalists of all brands are guilty of employing. Induction should precede deduction.

3DJay · 05-16-2007, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

While true, this is some way from the point made. And why on earth would people uninvolved in a subject want to be doing it all anyway? I can imagine nothing more tedious.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

"Uninvolved" is different than "uninterested". All modern archaeologists, and historians, and people interested in such things, were uninvolved in ancient cultures, yet they're intersted in learning about them. They're interested in trying to figure out exactly how everything went down.

My bet would be that the average secular historian would be more likely to admit ignorance, and be interested in finding out the truth, than say a Biblical literalist, who already believes the truth is written, and ignores all evidence to the contrary.

Seriously, the kind of people who still argue that the Earth is only 4000-6000 years old, or the like, isn't letting the evidence speak. They're ignoring it, or twisting it to fit the truth they believe is written in a book.

Peace

No Robots · 05-16-2007, 10:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dongiovanni1976x

Induction should precede deduction.

Not necessarily. There is after all the

Hypothetico-deductive_method. For a comparison, see here.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.