Freethought & Rationalism Archive

mountainman · 03-07-2008, 07:47 PM

Flavius Julius Crispus

Johnny Skeptic · 03-07-2008, 07:52 PM

Message to Mountainman: Have you visited Roger Pearse's web site where he defends Eusebius?

mountainman · 03-07-2008, 09:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Mountainman: Have you visited Roger Pearse's web site where he defends Eusebius?

Of course Johnny. Roger is an apologetic scholar. His defence of Eusebius reminds me of Eusebius' defence of Constantine, in his Vita Constantini. Richard Carrier accepts non apologetic sources for his assessment of Eusebius. The former is an example of the methodology of the field of "Biblical History", (TM) while the latter is an example of the methodology of the field of "Ancient History". The postulates of the two fields are at variance. In the former the HJ is defended (via the postulate of the HJ) and in the latter the postulate of the HJ is examined and critically assessed.

Does this make any sense to you?

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

Johnny Skeptic · 03-07-2008, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Mountainman: Have you visited Roger Pearse's web site where he defends Eusebius?

Quote:

Originally Posted by mountainman

Of course Johnny. Roger is an apologetic scholar. His defence of Eusebius reminds me of Eusebius' defence of Constantine, in his Vita Constantini. Richard Carrier accepts non apologetic sources for his assessment of Eusebius. The former is an example of the methodology of the field of "Biblical History", (TM) while the latter is an example of the methodology of the field of "Ancient History". The postulates of the two fields are at variance. In the former the HJ is defended (via the postulate of the HJ) and in the latter the postulate of the HJ is examined and critically assessed.

Does this make any sense to you?

It does make sense to me if what you meant was that Roger's positions are based upon faith, but disguised as scholarship. Under many other circumstances, Roger would not have been a Christian, and he would have been just as certain of his worldview as he is now. I do not find a God to be appealing who allows chance and circumstance to determine what people believe.

Please let me know what you think of an article at http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=...-08&print=true. I started a new thread with it today at the Evolution/Creation Forum. The article has to do with why people believe what they believe. It was written by Michael Shermer, and appeared in 'Scientific American Magazine.'

mountainman · 03-07-2008, 10:26 PM

Checked that SciAm article -- very low numbered sample -- but the idea of the article is appealing. I'd like to see a greater study in this area.

I must admit one of my favorite articles in this arena is: Why Bad Beliefs Don't Die

Quote:

Because beliefs are designed to enhance our ability to survive, they are biologically designed to be strongly resistant to change. To change beliefs, skeptics must address the brain's "survival" issues of meanings and implications in addition to discussing their data.

Gregory W. Lester

and specifically the following .....

Quote:

Implications for Skeptics

Skeptical thinkers must realize that because of the survival value of beliefs, disconfirming evidence will rarely, if ever, be sufficient to change beliefs, even in "otherwise intelligent" people. In order to effectively change beliefs skeptics must attend to their survival value, not just their data-accuracy value. This involves several elements.

First, skeptics must not expect beliefs to change simply as the result of data or assuming that people are stupid because their beliefs don't change. They must avoid becoming critical or demeaning in response to the resilience of beliefs. People are not necessarily idiots just because their beliefs don't yield to new information. Data is always necessary, but it is rarely sufficient.

Second, skeptics must learn to always discuss not just the specific topic addressed by the data, but also the implications that changing the related beliefs will have for the fundamental worldview and belief system of the affected individuals. Unfortunately, addressing belief systems is a much more complicated and daunting task than simply presenting contradictory evidence. Skeptics must discuss the meaning of their data in the face of the brain's need to maintain its belief system in order to maintain a sense of wholeness, consistency, and control in life. Skeptics must become adept at discussing issues of fundamental philosophies and the existential anxiety that is stirred up any time beliefs are challenged. The task is every bit as much philosophical and psychological as it is scientific and data-based.

Third, and perhaps most important, skeptics must always appreciate how hard it is for people to have their beliefs challenged. It is, quite literally, a threat to their brain's sense of survival. It is entirely normal for people to be defensive in such situations. The brain feels it is fighting for its life. It is unfortunate that this can produce behavior that is provocative, hostile, and even vicious, but it is understandable as well.

The lesson for skeptics is to understand that people are generally not intending to be mean, contrary, harsh, or stupid when they are challenged. It's a fight for survival. The only effective way to deal with this type of defensiveness is to de-escalate the fighting rather than inflame it. Becoming sarcastic or demeaning simply gives the other person's defenses a foothold to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange that justifies their feelings of being threatened ("Of course we fight the skeptics-look what uncaring, hostile jerks they are!") rather than a continued focus on the truth.

Skeptics will only win the war for rational beliefs by continuing, even in the face of defensive responses from others, to use behavior that is unfailingly dignified and tactful and that communicates respect and wisdom. For the data to speak loudly, skeptics must always refrain from screaming.

Finally, it should be comforting to all skeptics to remember that the truly amazing part of all of this is not that so few beliefs change or that people can be so irrational, but that anyone's beliefs ever change at all. Skeptics' ability to alter their own beliefs in response to data is a true gift; a unique, powerful, and precious ability. It is genuinely a "higher brain function" in that it goes against some of the most natural and fundamental biological urges. Skeptics must appreciate the power and, truly, the dangerousness that this ability bestows upon them. They have in their possession a skill that can be frightening, life-changing, and capable of inducing pain. In turning this ability on others it should be used carefully and wisely. Challenging beliefs must always be done with care and compassion.

Skeptics must remember to always keep their eye on the goal. They must see the long view. They must attempt to win the war for rational beliefs, not to engage in a fight to the death over any one particular battle with any one particular individual or any one particular belief. Not only must skeptics' methods and data be clean, direct, and unbiased, their demeanor and behavior must be as well.

Best wishes,

Pete Brown

paarsurrey · 03-07-2008, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

A false religious text can be the result of lying, and/or misinformation, and/or innocent but inaccurate revelations. I would not be surprised if the Gospel writers were not liars.

Hi

You never know who wrote these scriptures. Anonymous people wrote the gospels and were named after pesons who never knew perhaps that they had written them. It is difficult to ascertain if they were truthful persons or not.

Thanks

I am an Ahmadi peaceful Muslim

Doug Shaver · 03-08-2008, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

I would not be surprised if the Gospel writers were not liars.

I would be greatly surprised if they were.

I gave up thinking the Bible was inerrant over 40 years ago, but I have never seriously entertained the notion that the gospel authors were trying to deceive anyone.

Doug Shaver · 03-08-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

If this author was not a liar, where did he get the dialogue beween Gabriel and Mary from?

The same place Shakespeare got all his dialogues.

Doug Shaver · 03-08-2008, 08:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

My position is that the dialogue between Mary and the angel Gabriel is deliberate fiction, no-one witnessed that dialogue, the author of the story is a liar.

You just contradicted yourself.

andrewcriddle · 03-08-2008, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to Mountainman: Have you visited Roger Pearse's web site where he defends Eusebius?

FWIW I posted here http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...=235465&page=2 my suggestions of how to interpret Eusebius in the light of Origen's Homilies on Jeremiah

Andrew Criddle

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

03-07-2008, 07:47 PM	#11
mountainman Contributor Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Falls Creek, Oz. Posts: 11,192	Flavius Julius Crispus

03-07-2008, 07:52 PM	#12
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to Mountainman: Have you visited Roger Pearse's web site where he defends Eusebius?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.