BookTalk.org

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.

DWill,

First of all let me start off by saying that I was just expressing some frustration
I thought it odd that you missed my answer to that question because you normally do not miss anything thrown in your general direction. You also pose excellent questions and contribute keen insight. Having said that, I apologize if my tone was short.

Regarding your comment about science perhaps falling short of certain proof as it relates to large systems like biology; that tickled my single brain cell that I cherish so much.
I was recently reading a bit of Carl Hempel's Covering Law Model. He considers the notion of partial explanations and their relation to evolutionary biology. Much of it is based on naratives that predict biological outcomes, since evolutionary biology is such a highly complex process, the theory of evolution actually must be recognized as having limited explanatory power - it actually explains relatively little. It can only offer vague, probabilistic predictions and or explanations. The same can be said similarly about history and psychology.

I think this goes to the essence of science ultimately not being able to deal with the tough "Why" questions that a toddler asks. I think those people that place all their faith ( no pun intended) in science are asking too much of science. Hence, "scientism" follows.
Should science seek to explain everything? Should we expect that it does?
Is it the only realm of knowledge to look to for answers?
Who determines which WHY questions are good and which are bad?

I suppose it might be new thread time, since we're not on the HJ question anymore. but to follow up on your post, I don't know if you've read Sam Harris' last book, The Moral Landscape. In that, he proposes that science and values are not separate and that science should be used to determine values. He uses science both broadly, in the sense of reasoned inquiry, and more narrowly, in the sense of neuroscientific research, for example. He repeatedly says that although there are many aspects of the world that we don't understand, there isn't a reason to doubt that science can find the answers. The way to understand the world chosen by religion can never come to resolution; it can only lead to more division and violence.

Among the problems he doesn't confront is the problem of partial explanations and the fragmentary nature of scientific discovery. Getting the kind of scientific agreement that would then solidify into values is hard to come by. Science frequently raises more confusion in the minds of the public than it gives answers, and this process is inevitable and even necessary. So I don't see science as particularly useful in helping us with values. What if we could prove scientifically that a fetus has no sense of pain or distress? Those opposed to abortion wouldn't believe it, and that discovery alone wouldn't remove all objections anyway.

I think evolution does explain a great deal, compared to the explanation for the development of life we had before it came along. But the terms and limits of the explanation are contained in the all the research that buttressed the theory. For me your term scientism applies whenever anyone goes beyond the mandate of natural selection to claim wider application or significance. That is unscientific in itself.

ant wrote: I think this goes to the essence of science ultimately not being able to deal with the tough "Why" questions that a toddler asks. I think those people that place all their faith ( no pun intended) in science are asking too much of science. Hence, "scientism" follows.
Should science seek to explain everything? Should we expect that it does?
Is it the only realm of knowledge to look to for answers?
Who determines which WHY questions are good and which are bad?

I'm always baffled by this comment: "well science doesn't answer everything." This seems to be a canard by believers to show that there's room for religion in the world. But I've never heard anyone ever say that science explains everything or seeks to explain everything.

Science sheds light on the world. More importantly the truths it yields are objective truths about the nature of the world and our place in it (although this very idea that we have a place in the cosmos reeks of arrogance and hubris). The lesson of evolution is that we don't have a special or exalted place in the cosmos. This is perhaps the most elegant and profound truth yet revealed by science.

It's preposterous to believe that science could ever explain everything. For one thing, we are very limited beings with limited sensory capability and limited imaginations. It's preposterous to think that we could know everything. But what other avenues besides science can we, as limited beings, use to pursue knowledge?

I'm always baffled by this comment: "well science doesn't answer everything." This seems to be a canard by believers to show that there's room for religion in the world. But I've never heard anyone ever say that science explains everything or seeks to explain everything.

I too am baffled whenever a comment is made that science is omnipotent as a great majority of atheists claim that it is. Also, these "New Atheists" seem to think that science does away with the need for religion.
If you have never heard anyone ever say that science explains everything or seeks to explain everything, I'd suggest you listen to some of Peter Atkins' debates or discussions. He flat out asserts that science is omnipotent.

Also, from personal experience, you won't believe how many snarls, hisses, and the like I hear at science talks I attend. It is a reflection of the general attitude of "skeptics" - "we have the answers to everything, or will at some point in time" It's a real attitude that exists.

Science sheds light on the world. More importantly the truths it yields are objective truths about the nature of the world and our place in it (although this very idea that we have a place in the cosmos reeks of arrogance and hubris).

Yes, I acknowledge without reservation science's explanatory power. Whether or not truths can be defined as objective truths is debatable. It is difficult to achieve objective truth from subjective experience.

It's preposterous to believe that science could ever explain everything. For one thing, we are very limited beings with limited sensory capability and limited imaginations. It's preposterous to think that we could know everything

Agreed

But what other avenues besides science can we, as limited beings, use to pursue knowledge?

To think that science is the only avenue to obtain knowledge is to engage in "scientism."

This may be a bit related: What is your opinion of the below quote from Einstein:

"The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant.

We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

I suppose it might be new thread time, since we're not on the HJ question anymore. but to follow up on your post, I don't know if you've read Sam Harris' last book, The Moral Landscape. In that, he proposes that science and values are not separate and that science should be used to determine values. He uses science both broadly, in the sense of reasoned inquiry, and more narrowly, in the sense of neuroscientific research, for example. He repeatedly says that although there are many aspects of the world that we don't understand, there isn't a reason to doubt that science can find the answers. The way to understand the world chosen by religion can never come to resolution; it can only lead to more division and violence.

I am interested in Sam Harris' book. I've heard him speak before.

Sam generalizes too much about religion. Also, he does not recognize that the division and violence he holds religion responsible for is committed by extremists. He is stereotyping religion. That is not practicing true critical analysis.