spin

Funny, I have found it quite the opposite, ie that religionists (theists and believers of other types of religion) "are either ignorant of or disdainful of the entire issue of epistemology and merely assume that the standards that satisfy their biased theistic thinking are objective".

You may in fact be one of the rare species of animal interested in understanding how you "know" that which you "know" which makes up the basis of your religious position.

Those silly "unbelievers" are naturally in an easier position than you are, as they don't believe in a particular thing and, as you would know, the onus is on the person putting forward a substantive position (such as a position of belief) to provide the epistemological underpinning of such a position.

I do admit, there are many "unbelievers", who, in their zealousness, wander into your realm to give you a hand in sorting out the epistemological necessities of religious belief. This I would think is because religionists "are either ignorant of or disdainful of the entire issue of epistemology" and are only too happy with their received ontology.


spin

Vinnie

To continue with the fallacy quoting, this appears to present a false dilemma.

Vinnie

Richard Carrier

Nomad, thank you for pointing out a hasty generalization in what I said. I actually agree with you in most of what you say here. I meant, of course, "many" religionists, not all of them. My mistake was excessive brevity in writing that statement, and not anticipating how it would appear to others. I will correct the original post. I do not and never have believed that all religionists are the same, in this or any other respect.

But I have encountered more examples of what I describe than I can count--largely because my email box is a lightning rod for exactly the sort of person I meant to criticize (and this category is not restricted to Christians: I have been regularly flamed by Muslims and even a few Hindu Fundamentalists--yes, they exist), and because I deal often with just that sort of extremist when rebutting lies and distortions and errors in historical writing (both in my online writings and print publications, and in email by private request). A recent scientific study also confirmed past findings (examples cited here by Vorkosigan: 1, 2) that a substantial number of those who can be defined as "conservative" do possess an actual fear of uncertainty and ambiguity as a psychological personality trait, a fact which had already been well-known since Hofstadter's Anti-Intellectualism in American Life and Hoffer's The True Believer (both famous and, I believe, award winning historical studies still in print).

But I should not have given the impression that these extremists are "representative" of all religious believers, since I don't believe any such thing, and for that mistake I apologize.

godfry n. glad

I've met several 'religionists' who have no problem dealing with historical uncertainty, as long as it's not about the founding of _their_ particular religion.

godfry

Nomad

Hi Richard

Thank you for the apology. I had suspected that you had simply been unduly hasty in your writing, and this caused you to leave your statement excessively broad and unqualified. Thank you also for correcting the OP with the appropriate qualifications.

As for what many people post and write in emails, I am very familiar with what you say here. Indeed, the Internet seems tailor made for extreme views, and no doubt many of us have been the target of hate mail and uncharitable attacks.

Thanks again, and as I said previously, I have little problem with most of what you had to say in your OP. Should you ever make it to Calgary, perhaps I will have the pleasure of hearing you speak.

Peace,

Brian Trafford (aka Nomad)

contracycle

How so? Nomad wrote, and I re-quote:

"I, and other theists, have been more than happy to admit that most of ancient history (the historical Jesus included) is largely unknown to us"

I merely asked for confirmation that Nomad accepts that this does indeed apply to Jesus. Seeing as the point was that theists seem unhappy with the uncertainy in history, this would appear directly germane.

To date, Nomad has not responded to the point.

Nomad

Hello contra

I had not seen your post earlier, so my apologies. For the record I do not consider it to be reasonable to question the existence of Jesus, as the claim is quite unextraordinary, and the amount of evidence in support of the claim is more than sufficient. This is hardly a radical view, and is held not only by theists (which, as Richard points out in his post, was not who he was targetting in any case), but also by non-theistic scholars like Robin Lane Fox, Michael Goulder, and Michael Grant.

The test for ambiguity is not the existence of Jesus. So far as I am concerned this is not even a debating point, any more is a debate over the historicity of Paul or Peter or Hannibal for that matter. The test is on the details of the life of Jesus of Nazareth, and on this front we have plenty of ambiguities and unverifiable claims, both extraordinary and non-extraodinary. I have written on this extensively elsewhere (especially on XTalk, but also here), and have concluded that we cannot know with certainty that Jesus actually said any of the things ascribed to him, nor most of the acts. To put it in crude terms, if I had a vote at the Jesus Seminar, I would almost always be voting pink or grey. The study of ancient history does not give us the ability to vote with certainty on just about anything of real interest. We can know some things from archeology with extremely high degrees of confidence, but specific sayings attributed to ancient personages are another matter all together. On that front we can only speak confidently about things some of them wrote, and Jesus, of course, did not write anything.

Peace,

Brian Trafford (Nomad)

contracycle

Right; and this despite the fact there are a number of threads on this forum challenging that very claim, and pointing out that while there are recorded messianics in the area, Jesus is not recorded. I refer you to those discussions.

And thus I think the point of THIS thread is demonstrated. You decline to acknowledge the historical uncertainty of Jesus.

godfry n. glad

And now, it seems, we've all met another.

godfry

Nomad

Hello again contra

As I said, I do not consider it to be rationally defensible to argue that Jesus never existed. I have debated this question long enough to be satisfied that no serious case has been made for a completely fabricated Jesus of Nazareth. Most importantly, since this view is shared not only by Christian scholars, but also by atheist and agnostic ones, then it cannot possibly be said to be due to one being a "relgionist". Finally, since I am apparently not a "religionist" (now that I know what the word means), then the entire question is effectively moot.

I do not debate Young Earth Creationism any longer (as I consider the whole idea to be daft), nor conspiracy theories, nor the Da Vinci Inquest, nor the Rapture, nor the Dark Side of the Moon. By the same token, I do not debate with Jesus Mythicists.

Peace,

Brian Trafford (Nomad)