Johnny Skeptic

I think that I already have a partial answer to my question. Some time ago, a well-known, learned, and likeable liberal Christian at this forum told me in a private message that he could not stand it when people get history wrong. Apparently many other skeptics are like that.

I do not believe that the feistiness is productive. For example, regardless of whether or not Earl Doherty is right about the MJ (I am not sure about that issue one way or the other), he is doing the best job that he knows how to do, and so are his opponents. If a person is doing the best job that they are able to do, why should they be criticized?

Wouldn't it be nice if Earl and his opponents forgot about past ad hominem attacks and made a fresh start?

Guessing people's motives should be done sparingly, and only with good evidence.

Logically, if Person A believes that Person B has made a mistake, Person A using ad homimen attacks certainly will not increase the chances of Person A changing the mind of Person B. A good deal of time is wasted at this forum on unproductive, ad homimen attacks, time that could be much better spent politely discussing issues.

Less emotionalism, less egotism, and more politeness = much better discussions.

Professionalism at discussions forums attracts more people, and everyone has a better time discussing issues.

By the way, the very liberal Christian who I mentioned is not feisty, and is quite a gentleman.

Steven Carr

I learn more from being shown up as wrong, than from 100 people agreeing with me (as if 100 people did agree with me....)

Don't take things personally if somebody disagrees.

ApostateAbe

I'm all for diplomacy in argument, and I should know better. But I rediscovered that to keep myself from saying things that are offensive is a lot of work. For example, when I was saw the question, "How do scholars know that Earl Doherty is wrong if a critical review has not been published in a scholarly journal," I answered it with, "Some theories are absurd on the face..." and I gave a condescending explanation. It was offensive, but I didn't mean it to be, and I don't know how else to answer the question truthfully and politely at the same time. If I had put more thought into it, then I may have thought of a solution and prevented the thread from descending into an exchange of attacks and gotchas. Someone else seemed to take offense and made a comeback by comparing Doherty's theory to "fringe theories" like the theory of relativity or plate tectonics, so I countered with a point about evidence and a copy and paste of a monstrous list of fringe theories, which Toto correctly termed, "abusive overkill." I am careful not to take personal offense at anything, for whatever that is worth. It is much easier to remain non-offended. I can't easily control other people's reactions to my words, especially if honest and plain answers to questions offends them.

jgoodguy

The reason is that the evidence is so lacking that there is no way to make a judgment. It is literally one group' s informed speculation vs another group's informed speculation.


Another is atheist politics It would be grand to destroy Christianity by destroying the historically of Jesus.

The irony of the last is that Christianity destroyed the historically of Jesus and made the myth of Christ 2 millennium ago. In addition, the mythists do not have a simple proposition. So even a flawed Historical Jesus is more believable than a hypothetical lesser flawed Mythical Jesus.

So you have a politically charged environment, with little data for either side to prevail on a very unimportant issue. The little data on a passionate issue means a lot of name calling and insults as there is little else to say.

ApostateAbe

I think you get it. It is easy for ideology and wishful thinking to play a huge part in lay beliefs and debates about Jesus, because there isn't a lot of data, the data is inherently subjective and largely ambiguous (it is all about language), and to make trustworthy conclusions on the subject, without merely depending on the experts, takes an exceptional level of skill in judgment of probability and exceptional background knowledge. The so-called first quest for the historical Jesus was all about critical authors constructing a Jesus with the personality strongly resembling that of the author. The fallacy of that was pointed out by Albert Schweitzer, and his criticism was popularized among students, but it is a fallacy you see all over the place today. People tend to believe in the Jesus that they want to be true. The persons and entire paradigms are inextricably wound up in the arguments.

Steven Carr

You have summed up mainstream Biblical scholarship very well.

If mainstream scholars actually addressed the arguments for a mythical Jesus, they would make progress, even if they refute the mythical Jesus.


At present the axiomatic assumption that there was a Jesus of Nazareth blocks progress in examining the processes which led to such works being written as Romans.

And this axiomatic assumption rules out useful comparative religion where Christianity could be usefully examined against religions based on mythical people, such as the Maitreya.

neilgodfrey

There is not as much data as we would like but there is still a lot of it to discuss. But much of that data is not like chemistry that we learn about relatively later in our lives, but it is bound up in our cultural matrix and that means it forms part of our larger identities. Even if we did not have a religious upbringing, we know the data has a vital role for many others and has been significant in our historical identity.

I understand Albright himself was not particularly religious, but that his defence of the Bible was largely of the kind that liked there to be "something true" in something so important to defining who and what we are as a society. We like our myths and feel disappointment if some favourite belief is shown to be based on fabrication.

While there are people who argue rudely and with negative intent on all sides, it does seem to me that the bulk of the negativity does come from those who appear to have the most to lose with any challenge to their beliefs or cultural affections.

i also wonder if some sceptics are opposed to the idea of a nonhistorical Jesus because the idea has been culturally associated with fringe ideas like UFO's and flat-earth etc, and they feel embarrassed to be associated with fellow sceptics who are in fact more knowledgeable about the issues.


Neil

Celsus

I'm just in awe at how much people can beat a dead horse

dog-on

Perhaps, though in this case, we are not even sure that it is a horse we are beating.

dettus

Is it really about "changing the mind" right there on the spot of someone?