ant wrote:

geo wrote:

ant wrote:
I understand that atheists do not choose to develop a deeper understanding of matters like this. That too is not all that uncommon.

I would agree with this. Dawkins chooses not to debate the finer points of theology as well. It would be silly (for me at least) to delve into the merits of one religion's concept of postmortem baptism (Mormonism) or another's concept of transubstantiation (Catholicism). Theology, the study of the nature of God, seems to me not much more than an intricate rationalization for the existence of God. It's like "studying" the supposed mating habits of the Loch Ness monster or Yeti.

How many strawmen are you going to wrestle with here?
We aren't rationalizing god here. We are talking abut the historicity of a man

And intellectual arrogance demonstrates nothing.

Strawmen? I was merely responding to your comment about atheists choosing not to have a "deeper understanding" of early religious belief. I said it would be silly for me to delve into various theological rationalizations which I would suggest were very much the same then as they are now.

ant wrote: Realm of faith??
You continue to either ignore the point I made about the difference between history and the sciences or are intentionally misrepresenting what I've said to steer away from this discussion.

First suggestion, let's maintain a nice easy tone if possible. We're just talking. Wouldn't it be great if we all learned something, though I realize this is the internet. What would you say is the essential difference between history and science? My impression in listening to historians is that they are quite as scientific, in their way, as those others whom we label scientists. They are as tentative and cautious about their conclusions as scientists should also be. It is also true that historians don't see their role as to judge the merits of whatever people believe, just as scientists don't, or shouldn't. There can be some limits to that, of course. A historian isn't obligated to grant the merits of a belief in cases when that belief is clearly a major source of harm, such as with American slavery or other regimes of racial superiority.

Oblivion - you are quite right. I just clicked on the most active topics button and didn't see where it was

Strawmen? I was merely responding to your comment about atheists choosing not to have a "deeper understanding" of early religious belief.

Yes, strawmen.
You are wanting to talk about a "god" and not the historical jesus as examined by historians.

And your sarcastic loch ness monster statement.
i don't know what its mating rituals are. Go do some research and start a post about it. This discussion is about the historical Jesus.

First suggestion, let's maintain a nice easy tone if possible. We're just talking. Wouldn't it be great if we all learned something, though I realize this is the internet. What would you say is the essential difference between history and science? My impression in listening to historians is that they are quite as scientific, in their way, as those others whom we label scientists. They are as tentative and cautious about their conclusions as scientists should also be. It is also true that historians don't see their role as to judge the merits of whatever people believe, just as scientists don't, or shouldn't. There can be some limits to that, of course. A historian isn't obligated to grant the merits of a belief in cases when that belief is clearly a major source of harm, such as with American slavery or other regimes of racial superiority

Suggest the nice easy tone to GEO as well. Unless the ideal environment around here is an echo chamber, which I would not want to be a part of, I am going to more than likely take a different stance than what the customary one here is. I have no problem with that. Sure, I might not get any "Thanks" for my posts, but I don't care about that.

What is the essential difference between history and science? I thought I mentioned one;

Ant wrote..,

Natural science engages in repeatable experiments to determine the probabilities of future events re-occurring.
Historians examine past events that can not be repeated. Historians can only conclude what probably happened in the past. They are unable to prove what happened in the past

They are as tentative and cautious about their conclusions as scientists should also be. It is also true that historians don't see their role as to judge the merits of whatever people believe, just as scientists don't, or shouldn't

Of course they are cautious. That is why I indicated they (true historians) can only conclude what "probably" happened. They are unable to prove what happened in the past. Did I say otherwise? I don't think I have.


I digress a bit, but what are the limits of science's explanatory power?

ant wrote:
Suggest the nice easy tone to GEO as well. Unless the ideal environment around here is an echo chamber, which I would not want to be a part of, I am going to more than likely take a different stance than what the customary one here is. I have no problem with that. Sure, I might not get any "Thanks" for my posts, but I don't care about that.

I don't mean to come across as combative. Actually I think you and I agree on the main thrust of this thread—that Jesus was an actual historical person. We do differ on some things, but they're mostly minor points. I do appreciate your perspective and I wish I hadn't been so negative about Ehrman early on. That was unfair and presumptive of me since I haven't read any of his scholarly work.

ant wrote:

Strawmen? I was merely responding to your comment about atheists choosing not to have a "deeper understanding" of early religious belief.

Yes, strawmen.
You are wanting to talk about a "god" and not the historical jesus as examined by historians.

And your sarcastic loch ness monster statement.
i don't know what its mating rituals are. Go do some research and start a post about it. This discussion is about the historical Jesus.

Again, I was commenting on the atheist perspective, at least this atheist's perspective, of certain religious beliefs. Being outside these belief systems, it really makes no sense for me to address the validity of the intricacies of specific beliefs. I used the example of post-mortem baptism and transubstantiation, both of which seem absurd to me, but which our part of those Christian sect's religious doctrines. It would be disingenuous of me to address such peculiar (to me) religious beliefs or pretend to discuss them rationally. And since I also don't believe in the Loch Ness monster or Yeti, it would be very much like me addressing those believers' imagined biological data regarding creatures that very likely don't even exist. It's a fair analogy. You likely don't believe in the Loch Ness monster either. You can probably imagine how it feels sitting down with a true Loch Ness believer who insists on seriously discussing its mating habits. That's why this atheist chooses not to have a "deeper understanding" of early religious beliefs other than from a purely anthropological perspective.

Now, granted, I probably completely misunderstood your statement. If true, you could clarify what you meant by it. Or just let it go, that would be fine too.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:
Suggest the nice easy tone to GEO as well. Unless the ideal environment around here is an echo chamber, which I would not want to be a part of, I am going to more than likely take a different stance than what the customary one here is. I have no problem with that. Sure, I might not get any "Thanks" for my posts, but I don't care about that.

I don't mean to come across as combative. Actually I think you and I agree on the main thrust of this thread—that Jesus was an actual historical person. We do differ on some things, but they're mostly minor points. I do appreciate your perspective and I wish I hadn't been so negative about Ehrman early on. That was unfair and presumptive of me since I haven't read any of his scholarly work.

I choose not to be spoon fed conclusions drawn by mythicists. I'd like to think my position here is grounded in healthy skepticism. Reconstructing historical events from antiquity is highly complex and is much more involved than simply paralelling stories and arriving at convenient conclusions.

There is a common presumption among non believers who think that if a person defends any religious position then they must be against critical thought. That's bunk.

I think it's possible that some aspects of mythicism have elements of truth. It may have partial explanatory power, and that's it.

Am I a Christian for taking this position?
Call me a Christian Agnostic.

You obviously are very intellegent. I am sorry if I got a bit snippy.

Robert has brought up many compelling points, but I still question the overall mythicist position. It does seem almost like a counter culture sort of movement, kind of deconstructionist in its own way. It still makes more sense to me that Jesus was an actual historical person, although I'm just an armchair historian and my opinion isn't worth much.

Thanks for your posts, Ant. I do really appreciate your being here. It's given us atheists something to do.

ant wrote: Suggest the nice easy tone to GEO as well. Unless the ideal environment around here is an echo chamber, which I would not want to be a part of, I am going to more than likely take a different stance than what the customary one here is. I have no problem with that. Sure, I might not get any "Thanks" for my posts, but I don't care about that.

I was just surprised that you said I was willfully avoiding a point you made. I'm sure it wasn't that on my part. In the above that you imply that I expect a party line from you, which is also surprising given my expressed appreciation for your independent stances and my thanks for your posts.

What is the essential difference between history and science? I thought I mentioned one;

Natural science engages in repeatable experiments to determine the probabilities of future events re-occurring.
Historians examine past events that can not be repeated. Historians can only conclude what probably happened in the past. They are unable to prove what happened in the past

I do appear to have missed this. It's still an interesting topic, with no simple answer, in my view. I know it's true about the non-repeatability of history; historians often point out that they can't run controlled experiments. I wonder about the nature of proof in natural science, though. It doesn't seem that what comes out of natural science is always or even usually certain proof, especially when large systems such as climate and the biology of the body are concerned. Yes we have those accepted natural facts that have come from proofs, but it seems that there is a parallel to these in the facts of history. Unless we let ourselves get hung up on epistemology and the word "proof," we know that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth. Our ability to know with certainty what happened decreases as "what happened" grows in complexity, when sources aren't abundant, are contradictory, etc.

I digress a bit, but what are the limits of science's explanatory power?

My stab at that would be that science only happens bit by bit, piece by piece, and within each bit there is (or needs to be) a strict definition of what is being explained by the work. So limits are not a problem, really, and there theoretically isn't a limit to what can be explained. In practice, we have ideas about what science has and hasn't been able to explain, where "explain" needs to cover more than the physical nature of the world, since we are psychological beings.