Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Solo · 05-07-2012, 08:12 AM

An interesting article in Science (27/4/2012) on the correlation between analytical thinking and religious disbelief.

Best,
Jiri

johno · 05-07-2012, 09:00 AM

Having little Latin, less Greek, and no biblical languages I follow the threads in this forum rather as an uninformed person might follow competitions in a particularly recherche martial art, one so remote that it's impossible for the uniformed to tell who wins and who loses. It's interesting but I haven't any motivation to stick up for one side or the other in the HJ/MJ controversy. I am intrigued by the arguments nontheless.

One thing that does strike me is that the historical Jesus was nothing other than a precursor of L. Ron. Hubbard if it can't be established that he did anything miraculous: if he didn't we must conclude that he was just another religious ratbag good at gathering a following of the credulous losers who attach themselves to crank cults. Since it is impossible to provide historical evidence for miracles, nothing more could be proved about the historical Jesus than that he was a mortal man, probably borderline psychotic, of no interest at all as a manifestation of the godhead, no more interesting than the lunatic who thinks he's Napoleon.

The establishment of the existence of a preaching crucified Jesus cannot be of interest to christians without the evidence in support of the man's divinity. The failure to find a human Jesus is irrelevant to the concerns of atheists because they don't believe in gods, and if a candidate were found, nothing could be proved about him except that he had been an ordinary mortal.

So I don't see why either christians or atheists give a damn about the historical Jesus, but I enjoy watching the fun.

Juststeve · 05-07-2012, 09:25 AM

Johno:

That absurd claims were made about the deeds of Jesus is a very poor argument for the proposition that Jesus never existed. By way of example Tacitus tells us that the Emperor Vespasian pulled off two healing miracles, one of a bind man and one of a lame man, both of which are rejected by the modern mind. Nevertheless Vespasian exited. It is completely rational for someone to accept the existence of Vespasian while rejecting the proposition that he was capable of miraculous healing. Such is also the case with Jesus.

Steve

aa5874 · 05-07-2012, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Johno:

That absurd claims were made about the deeds of Jesus is a very poor argument for the proposition that Jesus never existed. By way of example Tacitus tells us that the Emperor Vespasian pulled off two healing miracles, one of a bind man and one of a lame man, both of which are rejected by the modern mind. Nevertheless Vespasian exited. It is completely rational for someone to accept the existence of Vespasian while rejecting the proposition that he was capable of miraculous healing. Such is also the case with Jesus.

Steve

It is totally illogical and irrational to compare Vespasian with Jesus of the Canon. ALL we have of Jesus of the NT are Myth Fables but we have artifacts of Vespasian.

Virtually Every event about Jesus in the Gospels and the Pauline writings is absolute fiction--that is--a human Jesus could NOT have done them.

People here do NOT dispute the historicity of Vespasian--people here DISPUTE the existence of the HJers' Jesus.

The HJers' Jesus is UNKNOWN, UNSOURCED, UNATTESTED, UNEVIDENCED and has NEVER BEEN FOUND.

One of last thing Jesus of the NT did was to TRANSFIGURE. That MUST be the reason why HJERS CANNOT FIND their Jesus--they don't know what he look like NOW.

Right NOW the HJERS Jesus look like MYTH to me.

johno · 05-07-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Johno:

That absurd claims were made about the deeds of Jesus is a very poor argument for the proposition that Jesus never existed. By way of example Tacitus tells us that the Emperor Vespasian pulled off two healing miracles, one of a bind man and one of a lame man, both of which are rejected by the modern mind. Nevertheless Vespasian exited. It is completely rational for someone to accept the existence of Vespasian while rejecting the proposition that he was capable of miraculous healing. Such is also the case with Jesus.

Steve

I understand that there are lots of mythical attachments to classical history, such as the supposed portents before the Ides of March, but these are only part of the history of the people involved. To put it another way, Vespasian is sufficiently interesting and well-attested without the mythical additions. Strip away the miracles from Jesus and there is nothing left except for an itinerant preaching troublemaker of no significant interest either to christians or to atheists, and that was my original point, so it shouldn't matter whether he existed or not.

outhouse · 05-07-2012, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Ehrman has specifically stated that his recent book was not written for scholars.

Besides which Ehrman is a text scholar, not a historian. He is in the tradition that spans from

Fenton John Anthony Hort to

Bruce Metzger--who was his mentor, but to the best of my knowledge didn't dabble in history. The only reason I can see for Ehrman's "Did Jesus Exist" is that he has built up a sufficient following to be able to sell it despite his lack of historical credentials.

I think I would trust Carrier, more so. for that exact reason

No Robots · 05-07-2012, 10:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by johno

Strip away the miracles from Jesus and there is nothing left except for an itinerant preaching troublemaker of no significant interest either to christians or to atheists, and that was my original point, so it shouldn't matter whether he existed or not.

Christ stripped of mythology is of little interest to most people. For some, however, the purely human Christ is of consummate interest.

outhouse · 05-07-2012, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Logical

One thing that strikes me as odd about atheists is that anyone, without knowing or understanding anything about the issues, can see that atheists mostly accept the expert consensus on things. They accept the biologists' conclusions about Evolution, climatologists' conclusions about global warming, psychologists' conclusions about homosexuality, etc.

That, I think, looks very good and reasonable to the casual observer because it makes them look fact-driven and objective, rather than ideologically self-serving, simply accepting what helps their presupposed worldview and rejecting what doesn't, which is something I know many religious people unashamedly do.

One strange exception to that is the historical Jesus issue. Here many atheists (including prominent ones like Dan Barker) oppose the academic consensus. It's easy for the casual observer to see the ideologically self-serving reasons for that position, more than any other position taken by them.

Here's why: Accepting a historical Jesus first would satisfy the "experts' consensus" expectation of atheists, AND it has the added benefit of satisfying what might be referred to as a "dissimilarity" factor, i.e. accepting a historical Jesus does not serve the atheists' purpose and worldview. (Another example of dissimilarity is accepting the Big Bang rather than a static universe). On the other hand, rejecting a historical Jesus first contradicts the academic consensus and second is an "Oh big shocker, I wonder why!" predictably biased position.

At the cost of committing the "argument from authority" fallacy, I have to say that I side with the "experts" on every issue I can think of, outside of subjective topics such as political ideology. I defer to consensus because I myself am not an expert and trust that those who spent the effort and have the talent to research a topic, most likely can provide the best conclusion, especially when they agree with one another, and it's a bonus when they deliver results (especially in the fields of medicine and technology).

Furthermore, when there is a legitimate controversy (unlike an alleged "controversy" such as the non-existing one over evolution), I tend to either reserve judgment or pick a tentative position while remaining very uncommitted until the experts work things out amongst themselves.

I just recognize I'm not the next Galileo or Darwin who is going to turn the intellectual world upside down and therefore doesn't care what the experts say about anything. There are way too many people walking around who think they know better than the experts (mostly because the Bible tells them so).

Theism or lack of it has nothing to do with trying to find a HJ at the core of biblical text.

Much of the new modern scholars and historians dont hold biases or they would be blown out and pretty much laughed at with all the competition in this field.

Your not supposed to follow just one anyway. If I did it would be Carrier just for the fact he takes pride dancing in the middle of the road.

but that doesnt discount others hard work.

Juststeve · 05-07-2012, 10:14 AM

johno:

The HJ/MJ debate is interesting to me only because I see people who claim to be skeptics making arguments careful thinkers should be ashamed of. One such is that the incredible claims made for Jesus prove that the man never existed, not just that the claims are doubtful.

Any other importance Jesus has to me would be as a moral philosopher with whom I find grounds for agreement, and some for disagreement. In that context whether his philosophy came from a real historical figure or a mythical figure doesn't really matter. Do we really need to know if Socrates existed other than as a character in Plato's Dialogues?

Steve

No Robots · 05-07-2012, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Juststeve

Any other importance Jesus has to me would be as a moral philosopher with whom I find grounds for agreement, and some for disagreement. In that context whether his philosophy came from a real historical figure or a mythical figure doesn't really matter. Do we really need to know if Socrates existed other than as a character in Plato's Dialogues?

It is important in both the case of Socrates and that of Christ to affirm the real historical existence of the man. Why? Because it is important to see that history is dominated by the struggle between the enlightened few and the benighted mass.

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

05-07-2012, 08:12 AM	#31
Solo Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Ottawa, Canada Posts: 2,579	An interesting article in Science (27/4/2012) on the correlation between analytical thinking and religious disbelief. Best, Jiri

05-07-2012, 09:00 AM	#32
johno Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Scotland Posts: 1,549	Having little Latin, less Greek, and no biblical languages I follow the threads in this forum rather as an uninformed person might follow competitions in a particularly recherche martial art, one so remote that it's impossible for the uniformed to tell who wins and who loses. It's interesting but I haven't any motivation to stick up for one side or the other in the HJ/MJ controversy. I am intrigued by the arguments nontheless. One thing that does strike me is that the historical Jesus was nothing other than a precursor of L. Ron. Hubbard if it can't be established that he did anything miraculous: if he didn't we must conclude that he was just another religious ratbag good at gathering a following of the credulous losers who attach themselves to crank cults. Since it is impossible to provide historical evidence for miracles, nothing more could be proved about the historical Jesus than that he was a mortal man, probably borderline psychotic, of no interest at all as a manifestation of the godhead, no more interesting than the lunatic who thinks he's Napoleon. The establishment of the existence of a preaching crucified Jesus cannot be of interest to christians without the evidence in support of the man's divinity. The failure to find a human Jesus is irrelevant to the concerns of atheists because they don't believe in gods, and if a candidate were found, nothing could be proved about him except that he had been an ordinary mortal. So I don't see why either christians or atheists give a damn about the historical Jesus, but I enjoy watching the fun.

05-07-2012, 09:25 AM	#33
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	Johno: That absurd claims were made about the deeds of Jesus is a very poor argument for the proposition that Jesus never existed. By way of example Tacitus tells us that the Emperor Vespasian pulled off two healing miracles, one of a bind man and one of a lame man, both of which are rejected by the modern mind. Nevertheless Vespasian exited. It is completely rational for someone to accept the existence of Vespasian while rejecting the proposition that he was capable of miraculous healing. Such is also the case with Jesus. Steve

05-07-2012, 10:14 AM	#39
Juststeve Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas Texas Posts: 758	johno: The HJ/MJ debate is interesting to me only because I see people who claim to be skeptics making arguments careful thinkers should be ashamed of. One such is that the incredible claims made for Jesus prove that the man never existed, not just that the claims are doubtful. Any other importance Jesus has to me would be as a moral philosopher with whom I find grounds for agreement, and some for disagreement. In that context whether his philosophy came from a real historical figure or a mythical figure doesn't really matter. Do we really need to know if Socrates existed other than as a character in Plato's Dialogues? Steve

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.