show_no_mercy

Well I don't agree with the "babies" part of his post, but what you wrote seems to imply that professors of religion are infallible. Maybe Prof McGrath will become an atheist or agnostic further in his career. What you wrote also seems to imply that you would have no qualms about the "babies" part of his post if Prof. McGrath was in your first category of religious fundamentalist.

ApostateAbe

OK, just to clarify, I don't think professors of religion are infallible, though I do think they are a lot less fallible in their field than the rest of us. And, yes, I would have no qualms about calling Prof. McGrath a baby if he really does show intellectual immaturity such as being an ideologue.

Yellum Notnef

Well that's great because comparing people who doubt Jesus existed to creationists is the mark of a baby who lets his emotions do the talking.

Just for the record, I've seen all the evidence for and against Jesus over and over and over and over and over and over and over again and it seems to me that any rational person should conclude that THERE"S JUST NO WAY TO KNOW FOR SURE.
And it doesn't matter one way or the other. Either Jesus was just one of many mortal kooks running around at the time which means nothing to us OR he was the magical being of myth that we all grew up to know. And the latter only means something to believers who shouldn't be expected to even entertain the notion of no Jesus.

Keep on arguing about it though.

Chaucer

He still means something to a certain number of atheist historicists, though, because of his social gospel and his heavy emphasis on social role reversal. That is why I'm not so sure that "one of many mortal kooks running around at the time" really means nothing to us, as you claim. For some atheist historicists, and I've encountered a few right here on this board, a mere "mortal kook" like that is a vital cultural lever for social justice. Not for all such atheists, maybe, but for a considerable number of such atheists.

Chaucer

ApostateAbe

For the record, I don't know for sure whether or not Jesus existed, and my guess is that Professor McGrath would admit the same. He and I are on the same page that it is about probability, not about absolute certainty. He and I are also on the same page about the comparison to creationists. I made the comparisons, much to the objection of members of this forum, months before McGrath did. Yes, it is the mark of a baby who lets his emotions do the talking, except if the comparison is true. I would also compare conspiracy theorists to creationists, and maybe you would not take that as a mark of a baby, just because you are neither a conspiracy theorist nor a creationist. McGrath does not make the comparison for no good reason. He is specific with his comparison, and so am I. The shared patterns are:

• unlikely ad hoc explanations treated seriously
• the tendency for a postmodernist style argument, where uncertainties of all degrees are treated the same
• pessimism of the motives of the intellectual authorities and the established system
• focus on disproving the established position instead of building a positive case
• advocacy of a theory defeated 100+ years ago
• wishful thinking being the likely motivation of the advocates, not the evidence

You are free to disagree with the fact of these points. The important thing is that they represent criticisms of the fundamental philosophy of the position, and they are not merely personal attacks. When I make the comparison, Toto reprimands me for poisoning the debate, and she is right, which represents the special defensiveness that people like us have to the comparison with creationists. And, it is either spamandham or show_no_mercy who makes the point that creationists universally accept a historical Jesus, and I object that the comparison is about the methods of reasoning and the thought processes, not the conclusions.

Yellum Notnef

Maybe, but it seems to me that the world would have been no different without his so called social gospel. Strip out the fanciful promises and everything he says boils down to one simple message "Don't be a dick".

"Don't be a dick" seems pretty much universal throughout all humanity though we tend to ignore it at times.

Chaucer

Candidly, certain sentiments like "Love your enemies", [paraphrase] "Give up your life in order to save it", "Turn the other cheek", "[paraphrase] "Give all you have to the poor", etc., strike me as having made a bit of a dent -- only somewhat though hardly uniformly in certain types of behavior, but very widely indeed in terms of the one aspect that Jefferson writes of in the DOI -- "a decent respect to the opinions of mankind". In other words, there is a residual feeling among most members of the human family today that we don't want to be judged as being wanting in specific ways, and these Jesus sayings have helped frame some of those aspects by which individuals are sometimes judged.

This is not to say that we are anywhere near a uniform pattern of turning the other cheek or giving to the poor or loving our enemies or always sacrificing our lives for others, etc. Nothing like that. But to be seen as too proactively the opposite of that -- going out of one's way to hate enemies, out of one's way to deprive the poor, out of one's way to always take offense, out of one's way to let someone die, etc. -- that kind of thing -- is to compromise one's companionship with others to a marked degree. Furthermore, the notion that each of us is precious is God's sight (however much of a guffaw it may justifiably raise today) has helped spur concepts in the past like equality before the law in the political realm.

I'm not sure how much of this would still be the case throughout our more recent history if not for the dent made by some of the Jesus sayings.

Sincerely,

Chaucer

aa5874

So you are an agnostic!

Probabilities are not derived from uncertainty and guesswork. You have already admitted you are guessing.

If you don't know whether Jesus existed then you are an agnostic posing as an historicist.


But, it can be shown and reasonably demonstated that creationists are in a better position than historicists.

Creationist believe the Bible is fundamentally true with respect to Creation, but historicist believe that the Bible is fundamentally false or non-historical with respect to Jesus but still use the very fiction as an historical source for Jesus.

Historicists have ,in effect, made their imagination their sole historical source for Jesus.

ApostateAbe

I figure that a pretty good way to make sense of what is wrong with the arguments of MJ advocates is to think of the rhetoric of aa5874 as essentially the same arguments and thought processes as those of MJ advocates generally, only aa5874 takes them to the extreme. That might be a good way for me to leave creationism out of it.

Toto

Why don't you learn something about history and historical methods instead of trying to find a new way of insulting people on the other side of the debate?