Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Radorth · 10-05-2002, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Could you give a cite for this methodology, proof by the lesser absurdity?

Since you eed a name for everything, how about Occam's Razor?

Oh wait. He's dead, so his principle no longer applies. I forget your own methodology sometimes.

Rad

Toto · 10-05-2002, 03:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
<strong>

Since you [n]eed a name for everything, how about Occam's Razor?

Oh wait. He's dead, so his principle no longer applies. I forget your own methodology sometimes.

Rad</strong>

Well, I was trying to make this a relatively serious thread.

Occam's Razor still applies, even though he is dead. It holds that in model building, unnecessary assumptions should be cut away. I don't know how this applies to your theory of the lesser absurdity in historical explanations. If you read Doherty, he holds that a mythical Jesus is in fact the least absurd way of explaning events. Does that mean you agree with him? Or that you would if you read and understood him (which you obviously haven't)?

joedad · 10-05-2002, 03:07 PM

Radorth or Hamlet,

Horatio here.

Quote:

Radorth:
We can show it, and have shown it via the methodology used to verify 90% of all accepted facts in human history, i.e. the alternatives are even more absurd. For us to live on "planet Doherty" we are required to take more by faith than the NT demands. This problem of blind acceptance works both ways, and seems to be the source of our divisions.

I'll admit one of mine, specifically that the nativity and resurrection stories require us to take much by faith. This where many agnostic historians draw the line, and reasonably so, presenting us with reasonable alternatives such as that his body was not to be found, but could have easily been stolen by one or two disciples who never fessed up. Or that some women given to insanity saw angels at his empty tomb and finally convinced Peter of same.

I take it the resurrection and birth stories are too absurd to be considered historical facts. But I'm curious why you would stop at the resurrection and birth stories, and not extend that methodology into all the miracles, as Michael Grant does, for example. Or do you? Do you? Or do you think GJ literally multiplied loaves and fish to feed five thousand, and made coins appear in fish mouths?

Occam's Razor would suggest that the gospels are fiction, period, what with a guy raising people from the dead, and making trips to hell and heaven, and no mention by contemporaries. HJ and the gospel stories are liturgical facts or historical fiction, but certainly not historical fact, unless you think there is an historical Hercules as well. If not, why not?

joe

lpetrich · 10-05-2002, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Radorth:
For us to live on "planet Doherty" we are required to take more by faith than the NT demands.

ROTFL!!!!!

I don't think that his theory is too farfetched, given our species' ability to invent myths, especially myths about revered founder figures.

Quote:

Radorth:
This problem of blind acceptance works both ways, and seems to be the source of our divisions.

Radorth *admits* it?

Quote:

Radorth:
But (sigh) the folks on Mars Hill never tire of hearing some novel theory, do they? Schonfield, Wells and Durant are dead, along with their "old" methodology.

Actually, this is Epicurus's Garden.

Quote:

Radorth:
"There are things in heaven and earth not dreamt of by your philosophy."

And yours, O Radorth.

Kosh · 10-05-2002, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Radorth:
<strong>
"There are things in heaven and earth not dreamt of by your philosophy."</strong>

That's Shakespeare you're quoting, let's get it right, hmm?

Quote:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

lpetrich · 10-06-2002, 01:41 AM

That was after seeing a ghost, and is intended as a rebuke to rationalist viewpoints, but it could also apply to theological apologists.

Radorth · 10-06-2002, 08:25 AM

Quote:

That's Shakespeare you're quoting, let's get it right, hmm?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aw gee OK. I'll try to include "Horatio" next time. Sorry you missed the point.

Radorth

"When in doubt, nitpick." (Author relatively unknown)

Radorth · 10-06-2002, 08:35 AM

Quote:

If you read Doherty, he holds that a mythical Jesus is in fact the least absurd way of explaning events. Does that mean you agree with him? Or that you would if you read and understood him (which you obviously haven't)?

I read what was on the web. That was enough to convince me he simply and arrogantly blows off years of hard work by other scholars, and facts cast in historical stone. Oh sure, once he does that, take by faith 20 other of his hyperbolic assertions, and his IS the simplest explanation.

Not that you particular believe it. It's just another novel theory to throw in the ring when the going gets tough.

You folks need a sign that reads "To the Unknown Truth"

Radorth

Starboy · 10-06-2002, 09:16 AM

leonarde,

Consider the possiblity that the very people he was trying to kick out of judiaism were the ones he started preaching to. Many of them were not Jews. He started off preaching to the choir so to speak. Then he just learned what he needed or made it up as he went along. He didn't start christian groups so much as co-opt those that were springing up all over. He saw an oppourtunity and he took it.

Starboy

leonarde · 10-06-2002, 09:36 AM

Posted by Starboy:

Quote:

Consider the possiblity that the very people he was trying to kick out of judiaism were the ones he started preaching to. Many of them were not Jews.[...]

(emphasis added by leonarde)

I confess that I don't follow this, even when taken with what, in the original, follows. Paul
"was trying to kick out of judaiism" certain persons, many of whom were not Jews. Hmmm. Doesn't
seem particularly difficult to me...

On the other hand, I understand that Paul was trying to convert people to a particularsect of Judaiism: the Way or Christianity, in which the prophecies about a Messiah were adjudged fulfilled. He did this in
synagogues and other places where Jews were since the Jews there were aware of these prophecies, and
he also preached among Gentiles too. Some of this does seem to have taken place in embryonic (ie already existing)Christian communities. But perhaps not all....

Cheers!

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

10-06-2002, 01:41 AM	#106
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	That was after seeing a ghost, and is intended as a rebuke to rationalist viewpoints, but it could also apply to theological apologists.

10-06-2002, 09:16 AM	#109
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	leonarde, Consider the possiblity that the very people he was trying to kick out of judiaism were the ones he started preaching to. Many of them were not Jews. He started off preaching to the choir so to speak. Then he just learned what he needed or made it up as he went along. He didn't start christian groups so much as co-opt those that were springing up all over. He saw an oppourtunity and he took it. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.