Is Christ Myth Theory the atheist version of Intelligent Design?

[Bunyip]

If we needed absolute assurance for everything in life, we would never be able to make any decisions. If alleged proof were presented one way or another concerning Hercules, there would still be doubt about the absolute certainty of that proof. That would leave us still not knowing anything.

Knowledge is not the world. It is a cut down abstract representation of the world expressed according to certain standards. If we want absolute accuracy in everything, forget it. It cannot be achieved. But it is perfectly reasonable to say that we know something is not the case when no evidence can be found for it being the case without being required to prove a negative.

Well yes, that was my point - that is why I ask you why believing that hercules did not exist is just as illogical as believing that he did. The best position here is uncertainty - confidence either way is equally misplaced.

It is NOT perfectly reasonable to say that you know something you do not know - in fact it is a lie.

 

[Bunyip]

No. Not believe. We KNOW and, what's more, we PROVE that we know. Bunyip? He just spent the better part of three pages insulting Legion and me for repeatedly PROVING that he doesn't know what he's talking about when it comes to the vocabulary used in source criticism.

This weak half-concession hidden in the stack won't do. Bunyip should unambiguously retract his unsupported, uneducated ideas surrounding what comprises a primary source in the field of source criticism. No one will be holding their breath as he has demonstrated an ability to not retract even one claim in the face of incontrovertible evidence that he's made conflicting claims.

You think you know, but you don't. You can't prove a word of it.

 

[Sapiens]

Look, the reality is that biblical scholars and such can't meet the test(s) that most other academics are required to so they change the meaning of words tertiary becomes secondary, secondary becomes primary, etc. I think that's rather poor, call a spade a spade and do the best you can, it would keep all the fields of academic endeavor in sync and would only cost the biblical scholars some ego points.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

You believe that Paul was a contemporary of Jesus and I agree.

Paul never met Jesus, and neither he nor Josephus are contemporary.

Apparently you didn't. You are backtracking because, apparently, you have again shown that you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are now claiming that when you said Paul wasn't a contemporary you meant wasn't contemporary evidence, an idiomatic redundant statement of your own invention to weed your way out of the hole you dug.

You believe that in this context secondary sources count as primary sources - sure, I concede.

I don't "believe" this. The terms secondary vs. primary are used by scholars in accordance with scholarly usage and thus what the mean is defined by their usage. Their usage accords with mine, not with yours.

You believe that textual analysis of The Gallic Wars does not constitute a strong case for historicity - I agree.

I don't. First, because as even an undergrad should know, textual criticism isn't textual analysis. Second, because I don't compare the wealth we have for the NT texts with the rather complete paucity of manuscript evidence for classical sources. Third, because linguistic & textual critical analysis (neither of which you've demonstrated even a passing familiarity with) demonstrate so.

It is only one of tens of thousands of sources for that person.

There is no "it".

I was never going to rely on textual analysis of it

Or anything else other than your repeated appeals to what historians accept. Would you like these quoted?

Or would you care to acknowledge that you are unable to defend Caesar without appealing to authority, acknowledging that we have more evidence for mythical figures, or that we have more than ample evidence to determine Jesus existed?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Look, the reality is that biblical scholars and such can't meet the test(s) that most other academics are required to so they change the meaning of words tertiary becomes secondary, secondary becomes primary, etc.

The text I quoted from was not directed towards biblical scholars nor intended for them nor used by them, but intended for classical historians. Can you substantiate any claims you've ever made about historians (other than your appeal to another member whose claim to be an historian turned out to be an undergrad major)?

 

[Sapiens]

Actually yes, but that's an irrelevancy. I can see how hard the field is to work in, but I do not understand the special dispensation. My field is hard, no one cuts us slack because of hurricane season, our experiments, proposals, quality of work all still have to be the same. I understand the what ... I just don't understand the why. Seems mighty chicken s**** to me.

 

[Bunyip]

Apparently you didn't. You are backtracking because, apparently, you have again shown that you haven't a clue what you are talking about and are now claiming that when you said Paul wasn't a contemporary you meant wasn't contemporary evidence, an idiomatic redundant statement of your own invention to weed your way out of the hole you dug.



I don't "believe" this. The terms secondary vs. primary are used by scholars in accordance with scholarly usage and thus what the mean is defined by their usage. Their usage accords with mine, not with yours.


I don't. First, because as even an undergrad should know, textual criticism isn't textual analysis. Second, because I don't compare the wealth we have for the NT texts with the rather complete paucity of manuscript evidence for classical sources. Third, because linguistic & textual critical analysis (neither of which you've demonstrated even a passing familiarity with) demonstrate so.


There is no "it".


Or anything else other than your repeated appeals to what historians accept. Would you like these quoted?

Or would you care to acknowledge that you are unable to defend Caesar without appealing to authority, acknowledging that we have more evidence for mythical figures, or that we have more than ample evidence to determine Jesus existed?

At this point I am 99% convinced tuat you are just trolling, but tue answer is no Legion.

I would not admit that I am unable to defend the historicity of Julius Caeser without appealing to authority because that would be insane. There are thousands of primary sources, actual physical evidence.

I would not admit that we have more evidence for mythical figures than we do for Caeser also because that is completely insane. There is a vast amount of primary evidence for Caeser.

I would not admit that there is more than ample evidence o determine that Jesus existed because that would be false.

Your arguments are just laughable Legion, I hope that you are trolling - if you are sincere you have some real issues my friend.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

At this point I am 99% convinced tuat you are just trolling, but tue answer is no Legion.

I have thousands of posts here, a blog with the same username, and comments elsewhere with the same username.

You have a claim that you are an historian without being one and...?

I would not admit that I am unable to defend the historicity of Julius Caeser

Of course you wouldn't admit this. You've demonstrated it, but why would you admit it when every time you are found claiming outright contradictions are not what they appear, you backtrack, deflect, etc.? However, as you demonstrate no knowledge of numismatics, textual criticism, or in general the sources and methods used by historians of antiquity, who cares?

Only for those like you with an axe to grind and lacking the ability to demonstrate the knowledge necessary is there any substance to your statements.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Actually yes, but that's an irrelevancy.

Let's examine your unsubstantiated claim:

Look, the reality is that biblical scholars and such can't meet the test(s) that most other academics are required to so

What counts as "most other academics"? Certainly, historians do not need to be familiar with Dirac's notation, multicollinearity, graph theory, neurophysiology, etc. Likewise, I'm the only neuroscientist I know who is familiar with methods in quantum mechanics and familiar with ancient Greek, Latin, Hebrew, German, French, and (at least to some extent) several other languges. Other colleagues I know are familiar with things I know nothing of, and most of us share a great deal of knowledge when it comes to research related to our fields. Yet precious few are more than completely ignorant when it comes to any topic of ancient history.

I never had to take a "test" to show I'm an academic. I had to show that I am familiar with certain, specific knowledge relevant to my field.

I quoted for you a non-biblical source showing that your unsupported, ad hoc definitions were not accepted by ancient historians regardless of whether they were biblical scholars. You responded by failing to indicate (again) you have any idea what you are talking about.

I can see how hard the field is to work in

Really? How? So far, you've stated that "the field" involves a criterion you claim to be true but haven't supported.

My field is hard, no one cuts us slack because of hurricane season, our experiments, proposals, quality of work all still have to be the same.

Then you aren't in research or in business. Or you are not representing yourself honestly.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Your arguments are just laughable Legion

Says one who has so obviously contradicted a position that (like all his others) he supplies no arguments for:

No. I would like you to identify an example of the evidence contemporary with Jesus that you claimed.



Paul never met Jesus, and neither he nor Josephus are contemporary.

I never claimed that Paul was not contemporary with Jesus, as you Legion and Prophet seem to imagine.

This time I quoted your complete sentences. So that particular method of weaseling out of your obvious contradictions is lost to you. Care to try another that doesn't completely violate the "logic" you claim to be familiar with based on a single Wikipedia article?

 

[Alt Thinker]

Well yes, that was my point - that is why I ask you why believing that hercules did not exist is just as illogical as believing that he did. The best position here is uncertainty - confidence either way is equally misplaced.

It is NOT perfectly reasonable to say that you know something you do not know - in fact it is a lie.

It is perfectly reasonable to make a statement for which there is substantial support and no substantial contrary indications. It is perfectly reasonable to assert an explanation that fits the known facts very well and for which there is no competing explanation that does nowhere near as well. That IS knowledge.

If you do not accept that then you can never make any statement or assertion at all since there will always be some other well hidden or exotic possibility that just might be the case. Any statements we make are in the end about what we know, the abstractions we have built up, and not about the undifferentiated reality that cares nothing about our categories or labels.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is perfectly reasonable to make a statement for which there is substantial support and no substantial contrary indications. It is perfectly reasonable to assert an explanation that fits the known facts very well and for which there is no competing explanation that does nowhere near as well. That IS knowledge.

Even without contradictory evidence, it's still reasonable to ask just how good the evidence is for a claim and to recognize the limitations on the evidence you do have. Otherwise, you end up being in the absurd position that a claim can go from "knowledge" to "not knowledge" as we gather more evidence.

You can evaluate whether a claim is vulnerable to challenge even without having the evidence in hand that actually challenges it. In fact, I would say that responsible scholarship demands this.

Edit: even if all our available evidence points to a particular conclusion, we should still ask ourselves how good that evidence is.

 

[Alt Thinker]

It is perfectly reasonable to make a statement for which there is substantial support and no substantial contrary indications. It is perfectly reasonable to assert an explanation that fits the known facts very well and for which there is no competing explanation that does nowhere near as well. That IS knowledge.

If you do not accept that then you can never make any statement or assertion at all since there will always be some other well hidden or exotic possibility that just might be the case. Any statements we make are in the end about what we know, the abstractions we have built up, and not about the undifferentiated reality that cares nothing about our categories or labels.

Even without contradictory evidence, it's still reasonable to ask just how good the evidence is for a claim and to recognize the limitations on the evidence you do have.

Of course. That is why I was careful to specify “a statement for which there is substantial support and no substantial contrary indications” and “an explanation that fits the known facts very well and for which there is no competing explanation that does nowhere near as well”.

Otherwise, you end up being in the absurd position that a claim can go from "knowledge" to "not knowledge" as we gather more evidence.

Not absurd at all. As I have been emphasizing repeatedly that “[a]ny statements we make are in the end about what we know, the abstractions we have built up, and not about the undifferentiated reality that cares nothing about our categories or labels” Knowledge consists of conclusions based on evidence and reasoning about that evidence. New evidence can surface and so can new reasoning. Knowledge is in our heads. It is not in the world. We can change our minds when there is cause to do so. But to say we can never make up our minds because we might find something else tomorrow is the absurd position.

BTW: That is also the solution to the Gettier problem. But perhaps another day for that one.

You can evaluate whether a claim is vulnerable to challenge even without having the evidence in hand that actually challenges it. In fact, I would say that responsible scholarship demands this.

Edit: even if all our available evidence points to a particular conclusion, we should still ask ourselves how good that evidence is.

I agree. But again see my specifications above. Substantial support assumes the evidence appears good after duly diligent examination. Likewise there needs to have been a duly diligent search for alternative explanations.

 

[steeltoes]

I believe Christ myth theorists are to scientists what intelligent design advocates are to Christians. And by this I mean they are fundamentalist, irrational, hopelessly agenda-driven, bunch of other bad things, etc. And I imagine there's not a single argument Christ myth theorists make that don't have a ID parallel. Let's discuss!

Oh, the irony, because THIS story really happened, only those other stories in The Bible are myths. BTW, intellegent design advocates ARE Christians and those advocating for an historical Jesus have the full support and backing of fundamentalists, so chew on that for a while.

 

[Bunyip]

It is perfectly reasonable to make a statement for which there is substantial support and no substantial contrary indications. It is perfectly reasonable to assert an explanation that fits the known facts very well and for which there is no competing explanation that does nowhere near as well. That IS knowledge.

Sure, it is reasonable to assert an explanation that best fits the facts - but don't confuse that for knowledge, because it isn't. It is a guess. It is not knowledge, it is an informed guess. Furthermore, there IS a competing explanation - one that is more accurate, more reasonable and fits the evidence better.

It is that we do not know whether or not Jesus was a real historical person, but it seems likely.

If you do not accept that then you can never make any statement or assertion at all since there will always be some other well hidden or exotic possibility that just might be the case. Any statements we make are in the end about what we know, the abstractions we have built up, and not about the undifferentiated reality that cares nothing about our categories or labels.

No, that objection is unsustainable. It infers that all human knowledge is as weakly founded in evidence - which is not true. There are a great many things that we can have a far greater certainty about than the historicity of Jesus. Just because the historicity of Jesus is a guess, does not mean that all other things we know are guesses.

 

[Prophet]

Oh, the irony, because THIS story really happened, only those other stories in The Bible are myths. BTW, intellegent design advocates ARE Christians and those advocating for an historical Jesus have the full support and backing of fundamentalists, so chew on that for a while.

I'll just chew on how "ironic" I find it that you are conceding that the Jesus myther thread you created was poorly conceived in this victorious fashion.

 

[Alt Thinker]

Sure, it is reasonable to assert an explanation that best fits the facts - but don't confuse that for knowledge, because it isn't. It is a guess. It is not knowledge, it is an informed guess.

An explanation that accounts very well for some observed circumstance and fits the well confirmed facts much better than any competing explanation can reasonably be called knowledge. If it cannot be then there can never be any such thing as knowledge. There is no such thing as absolute certainty because as I have been saying our perception of the world is only an approximation organized into invented categories. Reality cares nothing about our categories and is always more detailed than we can perceive. Knowledge is not absolute.

Furthermore, there IS a competing explanation - one that is more accurate, more reasonable and fits the evidence better.

It is that we do not know whether or not Jesus was a real historical person, but it seems likely.

Exactly what I started out saying.

No, that objection is unsustainable. It infers that all human knowledge is as weakly founded in evidence - which is not true. There are a great many things that we can have a far greater certainty about than the historicity of Jesus. Just because the historicity of Jesus is a guess, does not mean that all other things we know are guesses.

I was not extrapolating from one single situation. Where did that come from? I said a historic Jesus more likely existed than not. But based on everything we know, it is reasonable to say that a historic Hercules did not exist.

 

[Bunyip]

An explanation that accounts very well for some observed circumstance and fits the well confirmed facts much better than any competing explanation can reasonably be called knowledge.

You keep changing your wording, rather than addressing my responses more direclty. Please try to engage on my responses please. The best explanation in this case is THAT WE CAN NOT BE SURE, not that historicity has been established.

If it cannot be then there can never be any such thing as knowledge.

What? Because the best explanation here is that we don't know - somehow you believe that we can't know anything? So somehow because we cannot establish with any degree of certainty the historicity of a figure in the ancient past - then all knowledge evaporates in a puff of illogic? That is just a non-sequitut, not a rebuttal. It is also a rebuttal I have addressed specifically in mylast postto you - but you have ignored it.

There is no such thing as absolute certainty because as I have been saying our perception of the world is only an approximation organized into invented categories. Reality cares nothing about our categories and is always more detailed than we can perceive. Knowledge is not absolute.

Yes, you have said that before and I have addressed it before - but you ignored my rebuttal.

Just because there is not enough evidence for certainty in one case, does not infer that all humam knowledge is similarly fragile. There are many things that we can be far more certain about than the historicity of Jesus. The best explanation is that we do not know..

Exactly what I started out saying.



I was not extrapolating from one single situation. Where did that come from? I said a historic Jesus more likely existed than not. But based on everything we know, it is reasonable to say that a historic Hercules did not exist.

 

[Prophet]

You keep changing your wording, rather than addressing my responses more direclty. Please try to engage on my responses please. The best explanation in this case is THAT WE CAN NOT BE SURE, not that historicity has been established.

This is a false dichotomy fallacy. We can actually not be sure and establish historicity at the same time. History, in particular ancient history, has always acknowledged uncertainty in its findings. Historicity is established on grounds which Alt Thinker has already clearly established his understanding of:

It is perfectly reasonable to make a statement for which there is substantial support and no substantial contrary indications. It is perfectly reasonable to assert an explanation that fits the known facts very well and for which there is no competing explanation that does nowhere near as well.

What? Because the best explanation here is that we don't know - somehow you believe that we can't know anything? So somehow because we cannot establish with any degree of certainty the historicity of a figure in the ancient past - then all knowledge evaporates in a puff of illogic? That is just a non-sequitut, not a rebuttal. It is also a rebuttal I have addressed specifically in mylast postto you - but you have ignored it.

If Bunyip were to apply consistently stringent standards, he would, at very least, white out large swathes of history to no end aside from aggrandizing the reasonability of his biases.

Yes, you have said that before and I have addressed it before - but you ignored my rebuttal.

Just because there is not enough evidence for certainty in one case, does not infer that all humam knowledge is similarly fragile. There are many things that we can be far more certain about than the historicity of Jesus. The best explanation is that we do not know..

The mass of ancient history is "similarly fragile" when we apply Bunyip's scientific standards to their legitimacy. This is why serious historians...

...assert an explanation that fits the known facts very well and for which there is no competing explanation that does nowhere near as well...

...while Bunyip asserts that we should look at the evidence and throw up our hands. The utter incongruence between methods actual historians use and those prescribed by Bunyip, a self-claimed historian, is Bunyip's getting roundly exposed across two threads as a false authority.

 

[Alt Thinker]

You keep changing your wording, rather than addressing my responses more direclty. Please try to engage on my responses please. The best explanation in this case is THAT WE CAN NOT BE SURE, not that historicity has been established.

Are we talking about Jesus? My position from the beginning in this thread and others is that it is more likely than not that Jesus existed – those exact words - and I gave arguments to that effect. I have never said or implied that historicity has been established.

On the other hand my position (“more likely than not”) is a lot more meaningful than your position of “WE CAN NOT BE SURE”. That could mean anything from: it is extremely unlikely because of a total lack of evidence but “WE CAN NOT BE SURE”, to: it is highly likely because of a mountain of evidence but “WE CAN NOT BE SURE”. As I have pointed out several times it is possibly to come to a conclusion when there are strong reasons to do so. Knowledge is what we have very good reason to conclude. But it is also possible to form opinions about likelihood without claiming a definite conclusion.

But in the event we are talking about Hercules, my position, stated several times, is that there is no reason based on either evidence or argumentation to think there was ever a historic Hercules. We do not even see any indication that followers of the Hercules cults thought there was. In this case it is reasonable to say that a historic Hercules never existed.

You seem to be having trouble understanding what I have been saying. I suggest you go back and read my posts again.

In fact I will help you.

As I already said, one can be sure based on highly reasonable doubt. One does not need to prove a negative. The absence of any real reason to believe is sufficient for doubt.

In the case of Hercules, many stories are told but nowhere do we see efforts to put any of these stories into a historical context. The Greek attitude to religion was more attuned to the concept of a timeless mythic realm that one connects to by the repetition of stories and ritual re-enactments. It is not that the Greeks considered the stories about Hercules to be fictional. They were mythical and thereby real in a very different way from mundane reality. I recommend Armstrong’s A Short History of Myth for an extended discussion of this idea.

In the case of Hercules, the absence of any notion of a historical Hercules in even Hercules cult followers is sufficient to rule out a historic Hercules. Of course there is always the possibility of hard evidence surfacing. The city of Troy was considered mythical … until it was found. But that does not mean that gods and goddesses quarreled with each other over the progress of a war.

If we needed absolute assurance for everything in life, we would never be able to make any decisions. If alleged proof were presented one way or another concerning Hercules, there would still be doubt about the absolute certainty of that proof. That would leave us still not knowing anything.

Knowledge is not the world. It is a cut down abstract representation of the world expressed according to certain standards. If we want absolute accuracy in everything, forget it. It cannot be achieved. But it is perfectly reasonable to say that we know something is not the case when no evidence can be found for it being the case without being required to prove a negative.

It is perfectly reasonable to make a statement for which there is substantial support and no substantial contrary indications. It is perfectly reasonable to assert an explanation that fits the known facts very well and for which there is no competing explanation that does nowhere near as well. That IS knowledge.

If you do not accept that then you can never make any statement or assertion at all since there will always be some other well hidden or exotic possibility that just might be the case. Any statements we make are in the end about what we know, the abstractions we have built up, and not about the undifferentiated reality that cares nothing about our categories or labels.

What? Because the best explanation here is that we don't know - somehow you believe that we can't know anything? So somehow because we cannot establish with any degree of certainty the historicity of a figure in the ancient past - then all knowledge evaporates in a puff of illogic? That is just a non-sequitut, not a rebuttal. It is also a rebuttal I have addressed specifically in my last post to you - but you have ignored it.

Yes, you have said that before and I have addressed it before - but you ignored my rebuttal.

Just because there is not enough evidence for certainty in one case, does not infer that all human knowledge is similarly fragile. There are many things that we can be far more certain about than the historicity of Jesus. The best explanation is that we do not know..

My position has always been that we can have knowledge without having to have absolute certainty about every detail because we are not able to explore every detail. What we call evidence is an abstraction from the real world, fitting what we uncover into categories that we have invented. When we have reached a point that one potential conclusion is highly favored over any other, it is reasonable to say that this is knowledge. It is possible that new evidence or argumentation of a stronger nature might arise in the future but if due diligence has been applied to uncovering such before coming to a conclusion, we can reasonably say that we have knowledge

Go back and read what I have been saying. Your ‘rebuttals’ are against a position I have never taken.

And the best explanation about the historicity of Jesus that I have been arguing (and no one seems to be addressing) is that it is more likely than not.