Exploring Our Matrix - Latest Comments

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Brettongarcia — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:08:34 -0000

Paul: sorry if I used "rings true" out of present context.

In any case: what is the nature of the gospels? Are they say, just deliberate lies?

1) It is true that someone who writes false history, with an intent to deceive, is a liar. And many say that such lies, are at the basis of our Christianity; which is sometimes called a "White Lie," or "Noble lie."

2) However, if it is hard to imagine our priests involved in a very, very direct lie? Then note that history seems to offer among others, a second hypothesis to the origin of the story of Jesus: that it was orignally an invented work of fiction, or parable; and not deliberately intended to be taken as historical fact. But over time, what began as a relatively innocent made-up illustration, a moral parable centered around made-up characters ... was gradually taken by later generations as having been about actual persons. By mistake.

So that no person would have the sense of making up a lie; though the end of all this would be that an untruth had been generated; by people misreading, misunderstanding the nature of parable, especially.

Re: Arrival in Tel Aviv

Gary — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:37:46 -0000

I hate to see politics get involved with a group of students' visit to Israel. Although, I have to admit that I felt sorry for the few people I saw exiting the county (during the airport security interview) that looked Arab. They got grilled much more than us white guys (and we got grilled a lot too, even though we had been working with the IDF). Also, always a stark difference between passing though Jewish communities, and the obvious Arab communities. Haves, and have-nots. Reality sucks sometimes.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Paul R — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:32:12 -0000

BG - if you're refering to my use of the term "ring true", I wasn't saying that we should accept the gospels because they "ring true". In fact, the "ring true" point was not refering to any religious documents at all, and had a particular explanation attached to it.

Perhaps you could re-read my original comment?

Re: Arrival in Tel Aviv

Keika — Wed, 16 May 2012 09:59:08 -0000

Those smiles on your student's faces bring lots of joy back here in the States! You seem to know how to capture the enthusiasm and adventure with a camera. Have a great day ahead!

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Mike Gantt — Wed, 16 May 2012 08:05:22 -0000

What Claude speaks of is fiction that includes historical details. That's what historical fiction, or a historical novel, is.

I don't think Mark Twain was trying to re-write history. Successful novelists make far more money than successful historians.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Mike Gantt — Wed, 16 May 2012 07:57:21 -0000

What I said was, "
A writer who intentionally conveys as historical something he knows to be not historical has lied, no matter how noble may be his motives for doing so."

The author of historical fiction does not intentionally convey history. Rather, he intentionally conveys fiction in a historical setting. Margaret Mitchell didn't expect people to think she was writing the history of a man named Rhett Butler.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Brettongarcia — Wed, 16 May 2012 06:55:38 -0000

Mike:

Review Claude's excellent summary below, of a work of Historical fiction; the fake biography of Joan of Arc, by Mark Twain. (Who is, coincidentally, a famous Martyr).

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Brettongarcia — Wed, 16 May 2012 06:44:28 -0000

There is at least one reason why someone might want to write something that "rings true," that is full of historical detail, but that is not true. Yet not a lie either. As? In the case of a writer of an Historical Novel, or historical fiction.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Mike Gantt — Wed, 16 May 2012 04:58:19 -0000

Neil,

The folly of your position is that you (who are not a historian) are lecturing me (who am not a historian) about the proper way historians do things.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Mike Gantt — Wed, 16 May 2012 04:49:07 -0000

Again, how can there be any useful discussion if one party asserts the ability to read the minds and intent of unknown authors?

I was not asserting the ability to read minds. I was responding to your statement, "There are many reasons for writing in a way that resembles 'truth' that are not malicious." Go back to the context and see that you were also the one who brought up "lying."

In other words, we do not need to apply standards of literary or historical analysis to the documents in your view, yes? We do not have to treat them the way historians treat any other documents, yes? Do you really think that all we have to do is read documents and if they "ring true" or whatever then that's all that is needed?

Again, I've not said that "all we have to do is read the documents." I have said that this is the proper starting point. And, in some cases, we can draw conclusions without having to consult a literary critic or a historian. Someone like James McGrath is far more educated than I am about biblical matters. There is much he could teach me about the Bible and other things. However, I do not have to consult him in order to conclude from my own reading of Paul's letters that Paul thought Jesus had been crucified, and then raised from the dead three days later, that Jesus was the long-promised messiah of Israel, and so on. Respect for scholarship does not require that we put our common sense on holiday.

Mike, you are simply not listening. No-one is arguing that anything, let alone "natural claims" are to be dismssed "a priori". You say you don't understand my argument but I have made enough of it clear repeatedly that nothing is dismissed a priori -- nothing. Not even the historicity of Jesus. You have returned to your original claims as if you have heard or read nothing.

Neil, you fault me for not understanding that your argument does not dismiss anything a priori, yet you yourself said a couple of days ago to Paul, "I have at no point -- as I have said repeatedly to Mike -- yet given my full arguments." I have to ask you two questions: 1) Just how long does it take you to give your full argument? and 2) Until you do, why are you so demanding that others understand it?

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Neil Godfrey — Wed, 16 May 2012 02:45:17 -0000

As much as they deserved, Paul. By the way, if you ever bothered to read what I have said about religion you would have known that your attempt at mind reading my attitude towards religion - that I hold it in contempt - was dead wrong. Another failure to those who believe in their paranormal powers.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Paul Regnier — Wed, 16 May 2012 00:56:59 -0000

Gee Neil, that was a really thoughtful and considered reply to my points.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Neil Godfrey — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:23:26 -0000

Ah, the old rigorous "ring true" criterion, and the "mind-reading" abilities of such as yourself -- the standard fare.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Neil Godfrey — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:21:05 -0000

Mike, we have ancient records about the Trojan War that claim to be written by eyewitnesses. That's what the documents say, and many readers in history have believed them. I guess we should just take the self-testimony of those texts at face value -- making sure we treat all historical documents the way you would like us to treat the new testament documents?

You're only repeating late legend as if it were fact. This is not how historians work. Yet you say you believe we should apply the same standards used of other documents to the New Testament. But you don't do that. You treat the NT documents as exceptions to every historical rule in the book.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Neil Godfrey — Tue, 15 May 2012 23:14:02 -0000

"A writer who intentionally conveys as historical something he knows to be not historical has lied, no matter how noble may be his motives for doing so."

Again, how can there be any useful discussion if one party asserts the ability to read the minds and intent of unknown authors?

" When one of your fellow skeptics tells you that he, like you, regards all the supernatural claims of the New Testament as mythical a priori but that you are weird or off-base for doing the same with its natural claims, I can understand your frustration."

You write: "I do think a straightforward reading of the documents leads one to quickly conclude that it is not rational to consider these documents as presenting a mythical Jesus."

In other words, we do not need to apply standards of literary or historical analysis to the documents in your view, yes? We do not have to treat them the way historians treat any other documents, yes? Do you really think that all we have to do is read documents and if they "ring true" or whatever then that's all that is needed?

Mike, you are simply not listening. No-one is arguing that anything, let alone "natural claims" are to be dismssed "a priori". You say you don't understand my argument but I have made enough of it clear repeatedly that nothing is dismissed a priori -- nothing. Not even the historicity of Jesus. You have returned to your original claims as if you have heard or read nothing.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Paul Regnier — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:53:33 -0000

Oddly, I find that the more words I have in one of your quotes Neil, the more problems I have with it. It's not quoting out of context, simply trying to focus on one glaring problem at a time.

Anyway, I stand by my point. Your objection to Christian sources is hopelessly vague, and your position, if applied consistently would surely lead to the conclusion that the founder of almost every religious tradition in pre-modern times is likely to be a myth (and many other "historical" figures as well).

As an atheist who struggles to disguise his contempt for religion, I don't suppose that prospect bothers you remotely. But as somebody who is genuinely interested in the dispassionate academic study of religions, such a conclusion would bother me a great deal. It simply doesn't ring true - not least because it would be completely out of kilter with what we know about the emergence of new religions in historical times.

Re: At JFK Airport in New York

Jona — Tue, 15 May 2012 18:01:29 -0000

Have a nice trip!

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Mike Gantt — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:59:57 -0000

But I can always be skeptical about it, eh?

Re: At JFK Airport in New York

Keika — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:48:32 -0000

Fine looking group of students. Sleep well on the overnight flight. Who can fill their cuffed bluejeans with the most Holy Land sand and bring it back home with them? I'd like some!

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

VinnyJH — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:44:52 -0000

Mike,

I'm afraid that you to understand my position before you can know whether or not I'm changing it.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Mike Gantt — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:35:13 -0000

Now you're changing your position. I agree that there is nothing inherently circular about questioning presuppositions. Nor is there anything inherently circular about critical thinking. The position you took, however, when I appealed for thinking about history in a way that privileges neither faith nor skepticism, was that we have to be skeptical about all presuppositions. To be skeptical at the outset privileges skepticism, and will lead one to end up precisely where he started - skeptical.

You, as a skeptic who aspires to objectivity, need to learn that it's possible to question one's presuppositions without "being skeptical about all of them." Brettongarcia was quite right to acknowledge the view that the Achilles' heel of skepticism is its hypocrisy.

Re: At JFK Airport in New York

James F. McGrath — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:29:19 -0000

Delta.

Re: At JFK Airport in New York

Just Sayin' — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:28:30 -0000

Are you flying El Al?

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

VinnyJH — Tue, 15 May 2012 17:21:44 -0000

No Mike. There is nothing circular about questioning presuppositions. It is an absolutely necessary element of critical thinking.

Re: Mythicism and other Bunk around the Blogosphere

Brettongarcia — Tue, 15 May 2012 16:10:34 -0000

There are a whole series of related Liberal, Skeptical ideas that conservatives accuse of being circular, or selfcontradictory:

"We can't really know the truth about anything" - except, conservatives accuse, this very remark, that "we can't know the truth"?

"We must be tolerant" ... about, they assert, anything but intolerance.

And now?

"We must be skeptical" ... about anything but skepticism itself?

Skepticism is thus accused of being circular; of applying its skepticism to everything but itself. However, it might be simply stipulated, that skeptical statements admit of one exception. Isn't it strange in fact, that a person asking for tolerance ... should be asked to have tolerance, for intolerance? Wouldn't that turn this statement, into a selfcontradiction? Wouldn't it cancel out skepticism, and make skepticism impossible?

And so? Clearly we should be allowed to issue some kind of statement to the effect that skeptical remarks, admit of one exception, each: themselves.

Are we justified in allowing skepticism a special status? Skepticism is the principle of Science and Technology. Which have been traditionally, fantastically fruitful.

In light of their fruits, we allow them - and skepticism - special status.

While Jesus told us to evaluate priests and prophets, angels and even Christs, "by their fruits."