Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Freethinking Ferret · 05-21-2002, 05:28 PM

"All historians have theological presuppositions. Atheism and agnosticism count as well as faith; refusing to declare one's own interests, or assuming an unargued modernist or secularist stance a priori, is either naive, or mischievous, or a naked power play."

Discuss.

If there's a more appropriate forum for this, mods, feel free to move it.

Liquidrage · 05-21-2002, 08:10 PM

I would agree with the quote.
I disagree with the use of "faith", but it's just semantics as the meaning is clear.

No one is unbiased.
It also follow's my own quote I coined back in English 101 when discussing valid references.

"An opinion in agreement with yours is a fact. A differing opinion is just an opinion."

I just do not believe it is possible to be 100% objective much like I do not believe if it possible to commit an act that is 100% selfless.

Vorkosigan · 05-22-2002, 09:49 PM

NT Wright once said that history and faith must be brought together, and one should inform the other. He's just seeking excuses for putting his beliefs ahead of the truth.

Vorkosigan

Steven Carr · 05-22-2002, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Freethinking Ferret:
<strong>"All historians have theological presuppositions. Atheism and agnosticism count as well as faith; refusing to declare one's own interests, or assuming an unargued modernist or secularist stance a priori, is either naive, or mischievous, or a naked power play."

Discuss.

If there's a more appropriate forum for this, mods, feel free to move it.</strong>

It appears to mean that Wright wants to depict atheism as an a priori assumption, and he does not want people to think that atheism can be a conclusion from studying history.

victorialis · 05-23-2002, 02:09 AM

If Wright actually believes this, one has to wonder what justification exists for any study of history. The language of the statement telegraphs enough excess epistemic baggage to render Wright's own motives suspect.

Such colorful accusations reflect most upon the accuser. "Naked power play," indeed. Is this statement supposed to convince us that Wright has achieved something better than objectivity -- or that Wright has simply abandoned as futile any attempt at a balanced view?

Steven Carr · 05-23-2002, 04:55 AM

It does seem to reflect Wright's own prejudices.

For example, few history books about the battle of Waterloo warn readers to beware of historians who approach the subject of Napeolonic Wars with modernist or secularist assumptions.

I wonder if Wright warns people to beware of historians who discuss the Romans beliefs in Zeus or Apollo from a secularist perspective.

Freethinking Ferret · 05-23-2002, 05:51 AM

The problem that I had with the statement, and Wright's point in the book that it came from, is that (as Vorkosigan pointed out) only the faithful can truly study and discuss the historicity of Jesus, because he cannot be understood from a secularist/modernist point of view.

Maybe it's too rational of me, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a student of history (beyond the history of physics), but from my point of view, history consists of cold, hard facts... and simply stating those facts does not and SHOULD not reveal the biases of the writer.

IMHO, Wright uses this whole argument as an excuse, or a crutch to his viewpoint... since there is very little historical evidence for even the existance of Jesus, he needs to employ faith to make Jesus real.

Me? I prefer cold, hard facts.

WJ · 05-23-2002, 06:03 AM

I can remember when streaking was popular...and I was sitting on top of a car feeling free....oops sorry.

Of course when someone utters their opinion on something, most of it is colored by their experiences in life and such... . In the abstract sense, the reason why psychologist's say things like...."what you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you", is probably in part because nobody can get inside another person's head to completely understand the *meaning* behind their chosen words. And if they could, it would not solve part of the problem of how/why one arrives at their perspective (biasness). Besides, words don't 100% capture the phenomenon of living life.

That's what my intitial reaction or thoughts were when I think of the words 'the *meaning* of jesus'.

To that end, what was the main point of that [Wright's] essay?

Walrus

victorialis · 05-23-2002, 06:18 AM

Ferret, I share your preference for facts. Unfortunately, there is little cold hard fact in history beyond names, numbers and dates. And even those get revised. History is being revised as we speak. It happens continually.

I bear in mind the words of one historian -- and I don't remember the name -- "History is not the past."

That's true. History is an image of the past.

If only the faithful are permitted to study the historicity of Jesus, are they really studying it?

I say they aren't.

WJ · 05-23-2002, 06:34 AM

Vic!

If I may add my comments to 'faith'. (I think I pretty much follow liquids initial comments here except for the following 'faith' elements.) I may be missing something but if one want to attempt an 'objective' understanding of history and/or something that is new to them, it requires a faith to proceed thru the logic and meaning behind the writen material in order to get the jist of it.

In other words, I guess it is obvious that one has to try (although somewhat futile in the end) comprehending something and reaching a subsequenbt conclusion, particularly when learning something completely novel to them, without such baggage as mentioned previously.

At this point, the question remains for me, what is it that makes a person proceed with the proper comprehension or perspective viz. a contradictiory position (belief system) about the same subject matter? Why could it not be the concept called faith?

Walrus

05-21-2002, 05:28 PM	#1
Freethinking Ferret Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada Posts: 703	quote from "the meaning of jesus" - n.t. wright "All historians have theological presuppositions. Atheism and agnosticism count as well as faith; refusing to declare one's own interests, or assuming an unargued modernist or secularist stance a priori, is either naive, or mischievous, or a naked power play." Discuss. If there's a more appropriate forum for this, mods, feel free to move it.

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

05-21-2002, 08:10 PM	#2
Liquidrage Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Tallahassee Posts: 1,301	I would agree with the quote. I disagree with the use of "faith", but it's just semantics as the meaning is clear. No one is unbiased. It also follow's my own quote I coined back in English 101 when discussing valid references. "An opinion in agreement with yours is a fact. A differing opinion is just an opinion." I just do not believe it is possible to be 100% objective much like I do not believe if it possible to commit an act that is 100% selfless.

05-22-2002, 09:49 PM	#3
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	NT Wright once said that history and faith must be brought together, and one should inform the other. He's just seeking excuses for putting his beliefs ahead of the truth. Vorkosigan

05-23-2002, 02:09 AM	#5
victorialis Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 195	If Wright actually believes this, one has to wonder what justification exists for any study of history. The language of the statement telegraphs enough excess epistemic baggage to render Wright's own motives suspect. Such colorful accusations reflect most upon the accuser. "Naked power play," indeed. Is this statement supposed to convince us that Wright has achieved something better than objectivity -- or that Wright has simply abandoned as futile any attempt at a balanced view?

05-23-2002, 04:55 AM	#6
Steven Carr Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: England Posts: 5,629	It does seem to reflect Wright's own prejudices. For example, few history books about the battle of Waterloo warn readers to beware of historians who approach the subject of Napeolonic Wars with modernist or secularist assumptions. I wonder if Wright warns people to beware of historians who discuss the Romans beliefs in Zeus or Apollo from a secularist perspective.

05-23-2002, 05:51 AM	#7
Freethinking Ferret Senior Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: St. John's, Newfoundland, Canada Posts: 703	The problem that I had with the statement, and Wright's point in the book that it came from, is that (as Vorkosigan pointed out) only the faithful can truly study and discuss the historicity of Jesus, because he cannot be understood from a secularist/modernist point of view. Maybe it's too rational of me, and I'll be the first to admit that I'm not a student of history (beyond the history of physics), but from my point of view, history consists of cold, hard facts... and simply stating those facts does not and SHOULD not reveal the biases of the writer. IMHO, Wright uses this whole argument as an excuse, or a crutch to his viewpoint... since there is very little historical evidence for even the existance of Jesus, he needs to employ faith to make Jesus real. Me? I prefer cold, hard facts.

05-23-2002, 06:03 AM	#8
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	I can remember when streaking was popular...and I was sitting on top of a car feeling free....oops sorry. Of course when someone utters their opinion on something, most of it is colored by their experiences in life and such... . In the abstract sense, the reason why psychologist's say things like...."what you are not, you cannot perceive to understand. It cannot communicate itself to you", is probably in part because nobody can get inside another person's head to completely understand the meaning behind their chosen words. And if they could, it would not solve part of the problem of how/why one arrives at their perspective (biasness). Besides, words don't 100% capture the phenomenon of living life. That's what my intitial reaction or thoughts were when I think of the words 'the meaning of jesus'. To that end, what was the main point of that [Wright's] essay? Walrus

05-23-2002, 06:18 AM	#9
victorialis Regular Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Midlands, UK Posts: 195	Ferret, I share your preference for facts. Unfortunately, there is little cold hard fact in history beyond names, numbers and dates. And even those get revised. History is being revised as we speak. It happens continually. I bear in mind the words of one historian -- and I don't remember the name -- "History is not the past." That's true. History is an image of the past. If only the faithful are permitted to study the historicity of Jesus, are they really studying it? I say they aren't.

05-23-2002, 06:34 AM	#10
WJ Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 812	Vic! If I may add my comments to 'faith'. (I think I pretty much follow liquids initial comments here except for the following 'faith' elements.) I may be missing something but if one want to attempt an 'objective' understanding of history and/or something that is new to them, it requires a faith to proceed thru the logic and meaning behind the writen material in order to get the jist of it. In other words, I guess it is obvious that one has to try (although somewhat futile in the end) comprehending something and reaching a subsequenbt conclusion, particularly when learning something completely novel to them, without such baggage as mentioned previously. At this point, the question remains for me, what is it that makes a person proceed with the proper comprehension or perspective viz. a contradictiory position (belief system) about the same subject matter? Why could it not be the concept called faith? Walrus

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.