A question for atheists

[Ravin]

Apparently there are anti social justice atheists too. They occasionally show up on some of the atheist blogs I read.

 

IME these are the ones who have read too much Ayn Rand, or think the world runs on zero-sum game theory, or have a half-baked understanding of evolution that makes social Darwinism make sense to them--or all three.

 

You don't have to have religion to have ethics, but some people seem to throw the baby out with the bathwater when they ditch whatever faith they were raised with.

[Guest]

Heh, my brain read when, not what.

 

It attempted to answer the question of free will - if god knows everything that will happen, are humans really free. It's one of the many things that arose along with the emerging church to be sort of post-evangelical world.

 

The Wikipedia page has a helpful comparison chart that contrasts Open Theism and Calvinism - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

That chart is fascinating to me, because it was in the early years of the 1990s that I first started really having a problem with Free Will vs. God's Sovereignty. I had no idea there was such a thing as "Open Theism"; this is the first time I ever heard that term. But yes, I was wrestling with those exact questions in the early 90s.

[Audrey]

"SJW", meaning Social Justice Warrior, is regularly used as a dismissive insult by white supremacists, misogynists, and the alt right in general, especially on Twitter.

Ah, yes. The asshole brigades. Well... alrighty then.

[Bluegoat]

Is it really so hard to understand, though? A quick glance through TWTM and "how to evaluate historical documents" from our esteemed leader here gives those of us "laypersons" enough background to TEACH how to evaluate historical evidence through the high school level.

 

She tells us that PRIMARY documents are quite important to understanding "valid" history.

 

So once again, I'm asking - specifically about the existence of Jesus - what do we, as humans ACTUALLY have for hard evidence that he existed.

 

Because we DO, in fact, HAVE primary documents from that time and place in history, and None of them mention him. No, our record is not complete, but we have not one shred of evidence.

 

Since historians are human, we are also dealing with confirmation bias. Starting from the belief, faith, or worldview of Christianity results in making the pieces fit.

 

So, I'll ask a new question: Are you aware of any historians from non-Christian or Abrahamic faith centric countries - so, neither European or North American, but perhaps Japanese, Chinese, Indian, etc. who corroborate or find the same evidence to be compelling enough that Jesus , of the bible, did actually live in the place and time he is said to have lived?

 

A simple yes or no answer will suffice. Although names would be nice in the case of a yes.

 

I do think it is hard to understand, mainly because I've met quite a lot of people who don't understand it.  It really isn't the same, working as a historian, as teaching at even a high school level.  There are homeschoolers who teach subjects like biology to their students, but that doesn't mean they are qualified t evaluate evidence as a biologist, or even have a very in depth understanding of how it is done.  Typically, when parents teach those kinds of subjects they are very much dependent on the work of the experts in making those kinds of evaluations.

 

Specifically, what you've said about primary documents doesn't even scratch the surface of what is involved in evaluating information in ancient history. 

 

As far as ancient history - the consensus on this question is overwhelming - I've compared it to global climate change with good reason - if you were to apply to any department of ancient history while claiming that Jesus was not a historical person, unless you had some startling new information, you would not be hired.  There is one professor, in New England IIRC, who takes that view, but he is tenured and generally seen as a crackpot.  He's pretty unique, because otherwise you don't really find it whether you are talking about people who are Christians or not, or from cultures that are Christian or not. These are not people with an axe to grind on this subject.  

 

It's possible of course that the experts are all blind and self-deceiving,  but given that academia loves that kind of controversy, it seems unlikely, and a conspiracy to keep a lid on that kind of view seems back into the global warming conspiracy territory.

 

A good article on how historians evaluate whether Jesus was a real person, written for laypersons, is here.  It gives some interesting insight on historical evidence in ancient history, it's probably the best overview I've seen.

 

ETA - here is the second part of the article

Edited January 4, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Bluegoat]

All of these "where did morality come from?" questions can be answered by evolution. Murder? Bad for the tribe. The murderer is punished or removed from the group. Stealing? Not as bad but still bad for group cohesiveness and therefore punished within the group. There is an entire discipline of secular scholars who study this very thing. A deity isn't (and was never) necessary to "teach" people right from wrong. Societies worked it out themselves. We're still working it out (evolving) in many of these areas.

 

I think a god that doesn't condemn slavery or rape would be pretty horrible. That god is the one in the bible.

 

I'll assume you missed my point rather than ignoring it.

 

If morality comes out of evolution, it is coming out of nature, which is to say that laws or principles that govern reality.  In theology, that is what god is, the principle that creates and shapes reality.  You can choose to call it something other than a deity if you want, but that is still what philosophy has been talking about since almost its very beginnings and how theology understands it.  I can see why someone might choose to avoid calling it a god, or even the First Principle or Prime Mover and any other such term, but the danger of doing so is obscuring that it isn't saying something different than that morality comes out of nature. 

 

I disagree that the Bible says that slavery and rape are good, however, evolution surely doesn't condemn them - they've been very successful survival strategies (and continue to be if we're being realistic) and aren't anything like being universally condemned in human culture. 

[Lady Florida.]

 

I disagree that the Bible says that slavery and rape are good, however, evolution surely doesn't condemn them - they've been very successful survival strategies (and continue to be if we're being realistic) and aren't anything like being universally condemned in human culture. 

 

Evolution doesn't claim to tell us right from wrong. The bible does. And nowhere does it tell us that slavery and rape are wrong. 

[Bluegoat]

Some moral issues may be tied to nature. Killing threatens the species. Most cultures prohibit killing, except in certain exceptional circumstances.

 

Other moral issues are completely cultural constructs, like many of the rules regulating sexuality, for example, or the relative status and rights of the genders. There is no basis in nature for much of this; it is a patriarchical culture that requires closer regulation of female sexuality that of male - nature would just require babies to be born and cared for. 

 

ETA: Also, morality changes with time and culture. Just think about attitudes towards slavery or rape. I am quite glad that what is accepted as moral nowadays is not what the Old Testament spells out.

 

Well, my point was that it makes no sense to talk about a morality that is apart from the order of nature, and that isn't what any religion I have seen teaches whatever you think of their particular rules, which seems to be what some people are arguing.  Or, that there is no natural morality at all but we should construct one that is totally arbitrary, based on ? I don't know what.

 

I'm have noticed that moral rules vary with time and culture, and in some cases I think that is totally appropriate - I'm not sure what your point is there though - do you think there is some timeless truth in saying slavery is wrong or is that just a personal preference?  I'd say many of our cultural rules contribute materially to evolutionary success, not only ones like not killing.  And for that matter, killing can work pretty well.

 

I suspect from the point of view of raw nature, murder, rape and slavery can be pretty good ways of propagating your genes, and can produce very successful societies, especially under some conditions.  Some animal groups operate that way quite well.  So I am really not willing to say that we should limit human moral concerns to those that come most directly from the natural world - that are obviously "naturally' indicated.  And yet I do still think that ideas like "slavery is wrong" have their foundation in the nature of reality - they aren't just cultural constructs to me, they apply even when they would be good from an evolutionary perspective.  Which is why I think that the First Principle does in fact say more about morality than what is seen in observable nature or can be measured by success in gene propagation.

[Bluegoat]

Thank you so much for this, Karen.  This is very helpful.   :grouphug:

 

You might also find it useful to look at some really different religious traditions that what you've been used to.  The kinds of things that get discussed here as if they are not understood by Christian groups are widely known and accepted by some, both more theologically orthodox and liberal.  Many Quaker groups are theologically liberal, but any that I have encountered are fully up on modern religious and textual studies, and they have a lot of emphasis on social justice.

 

And most educated about their religion Catholics (especially outside the US) or Orthodox Christians are as well, though they tend to use a model of textual analysis that is neither critical analysis nor what you see in evangelical protestant groups - largely because the text exists within a larger framework rather than standing on its own.

 

From what you've said here and elsewhere, I think you might find both of those interesting perspectives.

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

I'm have noticed that moral rules vary with time and culture, and in some cases I think that is totally appropriate - I'm not sure what your point is there though - do you think there is some timeless truth in saying slavery is wrong or is that just a personal preference?  I'd say many of our cultural rules contribute materially to evolutionary success, not only ones like not killing.  And for that matter, killing can work pretty well.

 

 

 

My point is they're totally not appropriate if they came from a deity, regardless of the time and culture. An omnipotent, omniscient god who made rules like, "Don't work on the Sabbath", "Worship me and no other gods", and "Don't boil a baby goat in its mother's milk" could have, should have also made rules like, "Don't own people", and "Don't rape". The fact that the Christian god didn't; that he made rules that are consistent with the time period and location make it clear to me that he, like all gods, was man-made. 

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[Bluegoat]

Evolution doesn't claim to tell us right from wrong. The bible does. And nowhere does it tell us that slavery and rape are wrong. 

 

You've suggested that morality comes from evolution, above.  The usual explanation people make is along the lines that what we think is moral is what will allow the most survical success as a species, so I assumed that's where you were going with it, and that you thought this was a good reason to act on that morality.  If you meant something different than I'd be interested to understand - if you don't think nature can tell us what is right and wrong, where do you think that knowledge can come from?  Or do you think there is no such thing as an immoral act - I assumed you didn't take that view from what you said otherwise.

 

As far as the Bible, all of the societies that used it, including most directly, understood it as condemning rape, though perhaps not, as a culture, seeing it as as seriously as we do.  Perhaps if I was more of a protestant I would think that less important, but I don't think the text has ever been intended to hold that weight and be used in that way, without an interpretative framework.  Slavery, I think, is a little more complicated, as it comes in many forms and is related to many different social constructions, which even in modern times we haven't been able to escape.  The text is clear I think though social class or legal freedoms have nothing to do with a persons intrinsic humanity or relation to God.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Bluegoat

[Charlie]

I do think it is hard to understand, mainly because I've met quite a lot of people who don't understand it.  It really isn't the same, working as a historian, as teaching at even a high school level.  There are homeschoolers who teach subjects like biology to their students, but that doesn't mean they are qualified t evaluate evidence as a biologist, or even have a very in depth understanding of how it is done.  Typically, when parents teach those kinds of subjects they are very much dependent on the work of the experts in making those kinds of evaluations.

 

Specifically, what you've said about primary documents doesn't even scratch the surface of what is involved in evaluating information in ancient history. 

 

As far as ancient history - the consensus on this question is overwhelming - I've compared it to global climate change with good reason - if you were to apply to any department of ancient history while claiming that Jesus was not a historical person, unless you had some startling new information, you would not be hired.  There is one professor, in New England IIRC, who takes that view, but he is tenured and generally seen as a crackpot.  He's pretty unique, because otherwise you don't really find it whether you are talking about people who are Christians or not, or from cultures that are Christian or not. These are not people with an axe to grind on this subject.  

 

It's possible of course that the experts are all blind and self-deceiving,  but given that academia loves that kind of controversy, it seems unlikely, and a conspiracy to keep a lid on that kind of view seems back into the global warming conspiracy territory.

 

A good article on how historians evaluate whether Jesus was a real person, written for laypersons, is here.  It gives some interesting insight on historical evidence in ancient history, it's probably the best overview I've seen.

 

ETA - here is the second part of the article

 

This doesn't answer fraidycat's question about evidence. It's more consolation. It's merely suggesting a person need not be bothered by the lack of evidence.

[Bluegoat]

This doesn't answer fraidycat's question about evidence. It's more consolation. It's merely suggesting a person need not be bothered by the lack of evidence.

 

 

Do historians really need consolation of that kind? 

 

What he is saying is firstly that there is evidence, and its quality is about what you normally see for that period and what you would expect to see; and secondly that it is the best explanation for the development of Christianity and what we read in the early texts - that any other possible explanation requires convoluted arguments and unlikely scenarios.

[Charlie]

My point is they're totally not appropriate if they came from a deity, regardless of the time and culture. An omnipotent, omniscient god who made rules like, "Don't work on the Sabbath", "Worship me and no other gods", and "Don't boil a baby goat in its mother's milk" could have, should have also made rules like, "Don't own people", and "Don't rape". The fact that the Christian god didn't; that he made rules that are consistent with the time period and location make it clear to me that he, like all gods, was man-made. 

 

The idea that the bible, or by extension the God that inspired the bible, is a valid source of morality intrigues me as well. The fact that moral arguments change in time and according to geography should be a reason for skepticism. It seems instead that believers who accept these as a source of morality consider their personal understanding of morality to be legitimate and supported by these sources, and deviations are simply misunderstandings.

[Bluegoat]

The idea that the bible, or by extension the God that inspired the bible, is a valid source of morality intrigues me as well. The fact that moral arguments change in time and according to geography should be a reason for skepticism. It seems instead that believers who accept these as a source of morality consider their personal understanding of morality to be legitimate and supported by these sources, and deviations are simply misunderstandings.

 

Disagreements about what is moral, or not, doesn't mean there are not in fact accurate moral precepts.  That's true whatever you see as the source of morality.  That form of argument could equally be applied to any view of what the foundation of moral truth is, so its only effective if you believe morality is a myth. 

[Charlie]

You've suggested that morality comes from evolution, above.  The usual explanation people make is along the lines that what we think is moral is what will allow the most survical success as a species, so I assumed that's where you were going with it, and that you thought this was a good reason to act on that morality.  If you meant something different than I'd be interested to understand - if you don't think nature can tell us what is right and wrong, where do you think that knowledge can come from?  Or do you think there is no such thing as an immoral act - I assumed you didn't take that view from what you said otherwise.

 

As far as the Bible, all of the societies that used it, including most directly, understood it as condemning rape, though perhaps not, as a culture, seeing it as as seriously as we do.  Perhaps if I was more of a protestant I would think that less important, but I don't think the text has ever been intended to hold that weight and be used in that way, without an interpretative framework.  Slavery, I think, is a little more complicated, as it comes in many forms and is related to many different social constructions, which even in modern times we haven't been able to escape.  The text is clear I think though social class or legal freedoms have nothing to do with a persons intrinsic humanity or relation to God.

 

Nature tells us what's right and wrong in that nature explains how our species determines what's right and wrong in any given context. It's not like we read clues out of nature, but when we explain why we consider such behavior as covering certain body parts in public, or which sexual behaviors are considered taboo, or which words are swear words, the answer is a natural, not supernatural one.

[Spryte]

This thread really took a turn away from A Question *For Atheists.*

 

OP, I hope your questions were answered. I appreciated the questions, and your responses.

[Charlie]

Do historians really need consolation of that kind? 

 

What he is saying is firstly that there is evidence, and its quality is about what you normally see for that period and what you would expect to see; and secondly that it is the best explanation for the development of Christianity and what we read in the early texts - that any other possible explanation requires convoluted arguments and unlikely scenarios.

 

Like what?

[Charlie]

Disagreements about what is moral, or not, doesn't mean there are not in fact accurate moral precepts.  That's true whatever you see as the source of morality.  That form of argument could equally be applied to any view of what the foundation of moral truth is, so its only effective if you believe morality is a myth. 

 

By "moral precepts" do you mean an external, supernatural source of morality? I'm sorry, I'm just not sure I understand you. I understand this to mean there is, in fact, an external, supernatural source of morality, and to deny that is to conclude morality must be a myth. That can't be it though. I don't want to misunderstand what you're getting at, so if I misunderstand your premise, then I shouldn't go on.

[Mergath]

This thread really took a turn away from A Question *For Atheists.*

 

OP, I hope your questions were answered. I appreciated the questions, and your responses.

 

Just once I'd like to see a thread about a belief system other than Christianity (or a lack thereof) not devolve into certain Christians trying to prove everyone else wrong. I'm glad I'm not so insecure about my beliefs.

 

[Charlie]

This thread really took a turn away from A Question *For Atheists.*

 

OP, I hope your questions were answered. I appreciated the questions, and your responses.

 

It's funny, because I keep wanting to think that people of belief who come in to "correct" an atheist's opinion is in some way proselytizing, lol! But to be honest, I don't know if that's really true. It could be just my perspective, and if the tables were turned and an atheist corrected a misrepresentation of their beliefs or asked a follow-up question in a thread asking a question of believers, would that be proselytizing? Would it be tolerated? That's another question altogether!

 

Anyway, I've enjoyed the questions and the spin-off questions. My philosophy is that anyone can answer the OP or comment on any of the replies and we can get back to a point made in the past. Sometimes online conversations are easier than offline because you can go back without disrupting the flow.

[Mergath]

It's funny, because I keep wanting to think that people of belief who come in to "correct" an atheist's opinion is in some way proselytizing, lol! But to be honest, I don't know if that's really true. It could be just my perspective, and if the tables were turned and an atheist corrected a misrepresentation of their beliefs or asked a follow-up question in a thread asking a question of believers, would that be proselytizing? Would it be tolerated? That's another question altogether!

 

Anyway, I've enjoyed the questions and the spin-off questions. My philosophy is that anyone can answer the OP or comment on any of the replies and we can get back to a point made in the past. Sometimes online conversations are easier than offline because you can go back without disrupting the flow.

 

I think it depends on whether they're open to hearing another point of view. The Christians who come in to these threads, make their argument, and are absolutely dead set against even considering the other side of things are proselytizing. If they're open to hearing other arguments, I personally have no problem with that.

[J-rap]

To be fair, I jumped in because I find these threads enlightening, I learn from them, and specific questions were asked that I'm interested in myself and have been studying, such as What is Open Theism and What is Evidence that supports Jesus?  I actually do not come in to proselytize at all.  That's not me.  I figure we're all searching for truth together.  I enjoy the spin-offs too.

 

 

[justasque]

...

I suspect from the point of view of raw nature, murder, rape and slavery can be pretty good ways of propagating your genes, and can produce very successful societies, especially under some conditions. ...

 

Successful for who?  Certainly not for the slaves or those who are raped?

Successful by what measure?

In what conditions would you consider slavery and/or rape to produce very successful societies, in a way that could not be done without the slavery or rape?  That is, what conditions would make slavery and/or rape necessary for a successful society?

 

I am trying to understand what you are picturing here.

[MercyA]

Just once I'd like to see a thread about a belief system other than Christianity (or a lack thereof) not devolve into certain Christians trying to prove everyone else wrong. I'm glad I'm not so insecure about my beliefs.

 

I think you might be overreaching here in your assumptions. Bluegoat has never struck me as an especially insecure person. :) I thought people were just having a conversation and doing it fairly respectfully on all sides. 

 

I think it's like any topic here on the forum--if it's a subject you know something about, and you feel that your position is being misrepresented or that there is inaccurate information being shared, it's natural to want to chime in.

 

IDK. Apologetics aren't really my thing, but I don't see anything wrong with polite debate.

[J-rap]

 

Specifically, what you've said about primary documents doesn't even scratch the surface of what is involved in evaluating information in ancient history. 

 

 

 

 

I agree that evaluating ancient history is difficult and complicated.  For example, for those who say that Tacitus is suspect, I suppose that depends on your sources.  From what I have read, Tacitus is a reliable historian, though I could be wrong.  Apparently he had access to Senate's archives.  And then there is the oral tradition which was the main mode of passing down historical events in those days.  How accurate was that?  Did they have certain standards?  What is the evidence of the Christology movement, apart from Jesus?  Is the Jewish culture from which it arose reliable?  Was it more legend/myth based?  There are so many more questions to dig into and answer besides just looking for primary documents.

Edited January 4, 2017 by J-rap

[Bluegoat]

Nature tells us what's right and wrong in that nature explains how our species determines what's right and wrong in any given context. It's not like we read clues out of nature, but when we explain why we consider such behavior as covering certain body parts in public, or which sexual behaviors are considered taboo, or which words are swear words, the answer is a natural, not supernatural one.

 

 

By "moral precepts" do you mean an external, supernatural source of morality? I'm sorry, I'm just not sure I understand you. I understand this to mean there is, in fact, an external, supernatural source of morality, and to deny that is to conclude morality must be a myth. That can't be it though. I don't want to misunderstand what you're getting at, so if I misunderstand your premise, then I shouldn't go on.

 

No.

 

I'll say first that I am not talking about people who think that there is no such thing as right and wrong, at all - essentially that there is not even a basic universal morality. That group of people people are taking a different direction.  Not many people do.

 

What I am saying is that both the theist and the person who sees morality as rooted in nature ( a naturalist or materialist, say,) are making an almost identical argument when they talk about morality coming from nature (or evolution in some cases.)  Both are saying that morality is in some sense derived from the fabric of reality, the laws that move the universe. 

 

An educated theist is not saying that there is a universe with separate laws of its own, where some supernatural being comes along and imposes an external set of moral rules.  I think, from my conversations, that this language of natural and supernatural creates some real misunderstandings around these questions, because it creates an entirely incorrect understanding of what god is in a theistic system.

 

I find the best way to describe it is that for theists from all major religions and philosophical systems, god (or another equivalent word) is the word they use to describe the most fundamental principles of reality.  To imagine this, think, for example, what some scientists would like to be able to understand:  the mathematical structures that would govern all of reality and then think - this is not just an equation on a page but a real thing which is self-existent (nothing created or gave birth to it that is what makes it fundamental) and also that somehow it has a kind of potency from which the rest of the universe actually derives its existence.  That should be a very possible position for an atheist.  That is also god for a theist.  Philosophers historically reasoning that there must be some principle like that that underlies the universe we experience have identified it as god, and that continues throughout the history of philosophy. 

 

For a pantheist it would be seen as in some way united to and imbedded in the physical world, while other theists have seen it as opposed to the physical world, or in the Cristian/Jewish/Muslim tradition it remains a formal mathematical type of structure rather than physical but physical reality derives from it.

 

So when I talk about laws of nature, it really isn't something separate from the underlying forms or principles that govern it, and while I call that thing god, the reasoning is pretty much parallel to what even a materialist philosopher would mean when talking about the laws of nature, except he would see them as fully embedded.

 

For either viewpoint, if there is such a thing as an objective morality, no matter how small, it can really only derive that reality from the nature of the universe, whether you call it god or "the equation that describes everything" or something else. 

[Pam in CT]

The "evidence" conversation flummoxes me.

 

 

The absence of independent evidence can't definitively prove anything -- positive or negative.  This is maybe clearer outside the religious realm -- the absence of various "missing link" fossils doesn't definitively prove that evolution is false, nor does the absence of identified dark matter definitively prove that the mathematical models that imply its existence (which I do not BEGIN to follow, btw, I just heard a cool story on BBC this morning so it's front of mind, lol) are wrong.  Within science and also within history and archaeology, there is always the possibility that new evidence could emerge, either out of ongoing search with existing methods or through the development of new measurement tools or technologies.  That's what science in particular is about -- constant search to uncover yet-unfound evidence.

 

 

Similarly the absence of independent primary historical records or archaeological evidence cannot definitively prove that a claim within a sacred test is false... so to say "no independent primary historical or archaeological evidence has been found to support ______ claim in this sacred text" is not equivalent to saying "the _______ claim in this sacred text is false."  That's not how evidence works.

 

In Judaism, this issue arises with respect to the enslavement in / exodus from Egypt narratives, which are every bit as essential to the core of Judaism  as the paired narratives of the Garden expulsion and the Jesus resurrection are to Christianity.  If that many generations of that many Jews lived that long in Egypt and spent that long thereafter wandering on their way out, one would expect to find significant corroborating evidence in Egyptian scribal records, pottery shards, burial sites etc.  Thus far such evidence has not been found.  

 

Perhaps some day it will be -- independent historical and archaeological evidence for other (mostly well later) biblical narratives about the Temple era and the Babylonian exile and return has been uncovered.  It's possible.  All sorts of stuff continues to show up in Egypt.  Some Jews fervently hope so.  But equally possible is that independent evidence outside the Torah/Pentateuch accounts supporting the Exodus claims within those accounts may never be found.  

 

The absence of independent evidence outside of the accounts themselves does not definitively prove that the accounts are false.  To say "there is no independent evidence" is not to say "therefore the accounts are definitively false."  That is not how science or archaeology or history works.  The existence of evidence can support a claim positively, but the absence of evidence cannot prove anything at all, positively or negatively... whether it's dark matter, or fairies, or a claim within a sacred text.

 

 

It does mean that attachment to the accounts in sacred texts is through other means -- faith, or communal identity, or truth understood in more psychological / moral terms, or something else other than third party evidentiary triangulation.  Which is... fine.

 

For me, personally, the modern era perseveration on "evidence" misses much of the point.  Yes, Sumerian ruins support ziggurats kinda-sorta like Babel.  Yes, there are Babylonian inscriptions about a king named Nebuchadnezzar, and Persian records supporting the existence and decrees of Cyrus.  And to close out the end of the Temple story, there are Roman records of a Jewish uprising and the sacking of the Temple and some kind of last zealots' stand in Masada.  So what?  Those scant independently verifiable historical markers are nice, I guess, to sort of place the Jewish narratives into global time, but they are hardly the core messages of the narratives or what they mean to us and to me.  Those scraps of parchment and worn stones are not where my sustenance comes from, KWIM?  

 

The whole exercise seems rather weird to me.

 

 

[Laura Corin]

 

For me, personally, the modern era perseveration on "evidence" misses much of the point.  Yes, Sumerian ruins support ziggurats kinda-sorta like Babel.  Yes, there are Babylonian inscriptions about a king named Nebuchadnezzar, and Persian records supporting the existence and decrees of Cyrus.  And to close out the end of the Temple story, there are Roman records of a Jewish uprising and the sacking of the Temple and some kind of last zealots' stand in Masada.  So what?  Those scant independently verifiable historical markers are nice, I guess, to sort of place the Jewish narratives into global time, but they are hardly the core messages of the narratives or what they mean to us and to me.  Those scraps of parchment and worn stones are not where my sustenance comes from, KWIM?  

 

The whole exercise seems rather weird to me.

 

I think that the stress on historical evidence is a reaction to the way that the bible is treated.  In the tradition that I know best, the C of E, the Bible is seen as true but not literal.  So there's nothing to react against - okay, if some of it's poetic or symbolic, it's just a question of whether the poetry chimes for you, whether the symbols click.

 

If, however, as in some Christian traditions, adherents say 'The Bible is literally true in all its particulars and its truth is an important aspect of its value' then you are definitely going to have people saying, 'Prove it'.

[Pam in CT]

I think that the stress on historical evidence is a reaction to the way that the bible is treated.  In the tradition that I know best, the C of E, the Bible is seen as true but not literal.  So there's nothing to react against - okay, if some of it's poetic or symbolic, it's just a question of whether the poetry chimes for you, whether the symbols click.

 

If, however, as in some Christian traditions, adherents say 'The Bible is literally true in all its particulars and its truth is an important aspect of its value' then you are definitely going to have people saying, 'Prove it'.

 

 

Laura, are you familiar with Lord (and Rabbi) Jonathan Sacks?

 

( :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub: )

 

 

He is observant and I progressive, but he is among the life teachers who guided me along the very thing of which you speak.

 

Around here, these days, we're using the language of taking something "seriously, but not literally" albeit on a different subject.  Yes.

[Mergath]

I think you might be overreaching here in your assumptions. Bluegoat has never struck me as an especially insecure person. :) I thought people were just having a conversation and doing it fairly respectfully on all sides. 

 

I think it's like any topic here on the forum--if it's a subject you know something about, and you feel that your position is being misrepresented or that there is inaccurate information being shared, it's natural to want to chime in.

 

IDK. Apologetics aren't really my thing, but I don't see anything wrong with polite debate.

 

I don't think it's actually a debate, though. In a debate, for example, you don't tell the other person that they aren't qualified to interpret the data because they aren't a trained historian. If you're going to declare the other person's opinion invalid, what's the point?

 

And that kind of thinking is prevalent in all the threads we've had about religion, not just this one. I don't even know how many times I've been told that I'm not qualified to interpret the Bible because I'm not a Christian, so my opinion on the subject doesn't count. If someone is completely secure in their faith, why do they have to tell the people who disagree with them that their opinions don't count? It's a great catch-22, though. Your opinion has to be wrong because it only counts if it's the same as mine.

 

Also, it seems like every thread even tangentially related to religion, no matter how it starts out, ends with a Christian telling everyone else that they're wrong because [bible verse]. :P Just once, I'd like to see where a discussion like this goes without that happening.

 

Of course, I'm pukey and cranky and that might be coloring my opinion today.

[Bluegoat]

Like what?

 

 

Specifically he talks about Josephus and Tacitus as the two important external texts. Both mention Jesus as a real person who was founder of Christianity and both are considered very reliable historical sources.  What that means is that at that time, reliable and disinterested chroniclers considered him real, not made up. 

 

He implies but doesn't say it, but they are being used as corroboration for the more basic evidence - the internal texts, which means to a large degree the NT.  From the perspective of a historian, those aren't religious documents, they are historical documents, and they too are important evidence. (Or really, a group of evidences, they were only gathered together later)   We know that many people and events described were real, they were written with the intent to describe what were seen as historical events (unlike some kinds of texts are.)  

 

The third evidence he describes is the existence of Christianity itself - even without any other evidence, it would suggest that a person like that had existed, and if we think he didn't it requires another plausible explanation, and those don't seem to be convincing for historians.

 

There is a fourth evidence which he implies but again doesn't say straight out, which is the Christian textual tradition.  In the early Christian period, all kinds of people were trying to discredit the claims of Christianity.  The single most effective thing they could have done is claim Jesus didn't exist, and that is what we do not see them doing.  Also - and again he is probably less than clear about this - these discussions are happening within the context, not always of people who say Jesus personally, but one person removed from them.  So, writers who were the students of Jesus disciples.  It's as if your university prof was a student of Derrida. You probably have a sense of whether they lied about that.  Now, those writers might have been telling lies themselves, but no one, even those we might expect to do so, is disputing those basic facts.

 

In terms of the study of ancient history, this is a good case - these things are all within the parameters of what we accept for ancient philosophy more generally.  So, if we want to argue with them, we are really creating problems for the whole study of ancient history.

[justasque]

...Of course, I'm pukey and cranky and that might be coloring my opinion today.

 

:grouphug:  :grouphug:  :grouphug:

[Laura Corin]

Laura, are you familiar with Lord (and Rabbi) Jonathan Sacks?

 

( :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub:  :001_wub: )

 

 

He is observant and I progressive, but he is among the life teachers who guided me along the very thing of which you speak.

 

Around here, these days, we're using the language of taking something "seriously, but not literally" albeit on a different subject.  Yes.

 

Yes, I've heard him.  He often broadcasts on Thought for the Day on BBC Radio 4 - the speakers come from different faith groups, day by day.

 

http://www.rabbisacks.org/category/thought-for-the-day-2/

[Charlie]

No.

 

I'll say first that I am not talking about people who think that there is no such thing as right and wrong, at all - essentially that there is not even a basic universal morality. That group of people people are taking a different direction.  Not many people do.

 

What I am saying is that both the theist and the person who sees morality as rooted in nature ( a naturalist or materialist, say,) are making an almost identical argument when they talk about morality coming from nature (or evolution in some cases.)  Both are saying that morality is in some sense derived from the fabric of reality, the laws that move the universe. 

 

An educated theist is not saying that there is a universe with separate laws of its own, where some supernatural being comes along and imposes an external set of moral rules.  I think, from my conversations, that this language of natural and supernatural creates some real misunderstandings around these questions, because it creates an entirely incorrect understanding of what god is in a theistic system.

 

I find the best way to describe it is that for theists from all major religions and philosophical systems, god (or another equivalent word) is the word they use to describe the most fundamental principles of reality.  To imagine this, think, for example, what some scientists would like to be able to understand:  the mathematical structures that would govern all of reality and then think - this is not just an equation on a page but a real thing which is self-existent (nothing created or gave birth to it that is what makes it fundamental) and also that somehow it has a kind of potency from which the rest of the universe actually derives its existence.  That should be a very possible position for an atheist.  That is also god for a theist.  Philosophers historically reasoning that there must be some principle like that that underlies the universe we experience have identified it as god, and that continues throughout the history of philosophy. 

 

For a pantheist it would be seen as in some way united to and imbedded in the physical world, while other theists have seen it as opposed to the physical world, or in the Cristian/Jewish/Muslim tradition it remains a formal mathematical type of structure rather than physical but physical reality derives from it.

 

So when I talk about laws of nature, it really isn't something separate from the underlying forms or principles that govern it, and while I call that thing god, the reasoning is pretty much parallel to what even a materialist philosopher would mean when talking about the laws of nature, except he would see them as fully embedded.

 

For either viewpoint, if there is such a thing as an objective morality, no matter how small, it can really only derive that reality from the nature of the universe, whether you call it god or "the equation that describes everything" or something else. 

 

Thank you for the clarification. I think! I'm still pretty confused, so please be patient as I repeat what I think you're saying. That way I won't waste any time discussing something that no one else is talking about, lol!

 

It seems to me you're saying that the laws of nature explained with a god variable are identical to the laws of nature explained without a god variable. It doesn't make sense to me to invoke such a variable if it's unnecessary.

 

I don't know that morality can be considered objective in the context of the laws of physics. What is the objective source that identifies morality?

 

Your idea that morality can be understood with education goes along with my idea that everyone thinks their morality is right, and those who disagree simply misunderstand the source.

 

I'm surprised no theist has asked you to stop referring to their beliefs as being uneducated. It's uncomfortable for me to read, and I'm not even a believer.

[Ravin]

Specifically he talks about Josephus and Tacitus as the two important external texts. Both mention Jesus as a real person who was founder of Christianity and both are considered very reliable historical sources.  What that means is that at that time, reliable and disinterested chroniclers considered him real, not made up. 

 

He implies but doesn't say it, but they are being used as corroboration for the more basic evidence - the internal texts, which means to a large degree the NT.  From the perspective of a historian, those aren't religious documents, they are historical documents, and they too are important evidence. (Or really, a group of evidences, they were only gathered together later)   We know that many people and events described were real, they were written with the intent to describe what were seen as historical events (unlike some kinds of texts are.)  

 

The third evidence he describes is the existence of Christianity itself - even without any other evidence, it would suggest that a person like that had existed, and if we think he didn't it requires another plausible explanation, and those don't seem to be convincing for historians.

 

There is a fourth evidence which he implies but again doesn't say straight out, which is the Christian textual tradition.  In the early Christian period, all kinds of people were trying to discredit the claims of Christianity.  The single most effective thing they could have done is claim Jesus didn't exist, and that is what we do not see them doing.  Also - and again he is probably less than clear about this - these discussions are happening within the context, not always of people who say Jesus personally, but one person removed from them.  So, writers who were the students of Jesus disciples.  It's as if your university prof was a student of Derrida. You probably have a sense of whether they lied about that.  Now, those writers might have been telling lies themselves, but no one, even those we might expect to do so, is disputing those basic facts.

 

In terms of the study of ancient history, this is a good case - these things are all within the parameters of what we accept for ancient philosophy more generally.  So, if we want to argue with them, we are really creating problems for the whole study of ancient history.

 

Another thing that can be pointed out, is that accepting the existence of a person based on historical record does not necessitate accepting as fact mythological aspects of accounts of his life (e.g., virgin birth, miracles performed, etc.). 

[Bluegoat]

I don't think it's actually a debate, though. In a debate, for example, you don't tell the other person that they aren't qualified to interpret the data because they aren't a trained historian. If you're going to declare the other person's opinion invalid, what's the point?

 

And that kind of thinking is prevalent in all the threads we've had about religion, not just this one. I don't even know how many times I've been told that I'm not qualified to interpret the Bible because I'm not a Christian, so my opinion on the subject doesn't count. If someone is completely secure in their faith, why do they have to tell the people who disagree with them that their opinions don't count? It's a great catch-22, though. Your opinion has to be wrong because it only counts if it's the same as mine.

 

Also, it seems like every thread even tangentially related to religion, no matter how it starts out, ends with a Christian telling everyone else that they're wrong because [bible verse]. :p Just once, I'd like to see where a discussion like this goes without that happening.

 

Of course, I'm pukey and cranky and that might be coloring my opinion today.

 

If we have a discussion here about global warming, or the age of the earth, and some people argue that there is no climate change and the climate scientists don't know what they are talking about, or that all the geologists are wrong, inevitably, and IMO quite rightly, people will point out that the person saying this is not qualified and usually isn't understanding the data, and that if they are going to disagree with the consensus of experts they really need to have a very solid argument.

 

I haven't argued anything about Jesus theologically, so I don't see how that is a Christians argument. This is a historical, secular question. I actually find it really perplexing, and sometimes a little embarrassing, that people who would be horrified at the disregard for scholarship in a discussion on science do exactly the same thing, complete with conspiracy theories, in a discussion about history. 

 

I also think there is a big difference between agreeing with a theory, religious or otherwise, and understanding it accurately.  I tend to assume that most people, if they care to discuss it at all, actually want to understand accurately what a particular thought system is saying (or not saying), and what the language means.  I mean, that's the pre-requisite I think for any kind of discussion or even to form an opinion.

[Charlie]

The "evidence" conversation flummoxes me.

 

 

The absence of independent evidence can't definitively prove anything -- positive or negative.  This is maybe clearer outside the religious realm -- the absence of various "missing link" fossils doesn't definitively prove that evolution is false, nor does the absence of identified dark matter definitively prove that the mathematical models that imply its existence (which I do not BEGIN to follow, btw, I just heard a cool story on BBC this morning so it's front of mind, lol) are wrong.  Within science and also within history and archaeology, there is always the possibility that new evidence could emerge, either out of ongoing search with existing methods or through the development of new measurement tools or technologies.  That's what science in particular is about -- constant search to uncover yet-unfound evidence.

 

 

Similarly the absence of independent primary historical records or archaeological evidence cannot definitively prove that a claim within a sacred test is false... so to say "no independent primary historical or archaeological evidence has been found to support ______ claim in this sacred text" is not equivalent to saying "the _______ claim in this sacred text is false."  That's not how evidence works.

 

In Judaism, this issue arises with respect to the enslavement in / exodus from Egypt narratives, which are every bit as essential to the core of Judaism  as the paired narratives of the Garden expulsion and the Jesus resurrection are to Christianity.  If that many generations of that many Jews lived that long in Egypt and spent that long thereafter wandering on their way out, one would expect to find significant corroborating evidence in Egyptian scribal records, pottery shards, burial sites etc.  Thus far such evidence has not been found.  

 

Perhaps some day it will be -- independent historical and archaeological evidence for other (mostly well later) biblical narratives about the Temple era and the Babylonian exile and return has been uncovered.  It's possible.  All sorts of stuff continues to show up in Egypt.  Some Jews fervently hope so.  But equally possible is that independent evidence outside the Torah/Pentateuch accounts supporting the Exodus claims within those accounts may never be found.  

 

The absence of independent evidence outside of the accounts themselves does not definitively prove that the accounts are false.  To say "there is no independent evidence" is not to say "therefore the accounts are definitively false."  That is not how science or archaeology or history works.  The existence of evidence can support a claim positively, but the absence of evidence cannot prove anything at all, positively or negatively... whether it's dark matter, or fairies, or a claim within a sacred text.

 

 

It does mean that attachment to the accounts in sacred texts is through other means -- faith, or communal identity, or truth understood in more psychological / moral terms, or something else other than third party evidentiary triangulation.  Which is... fine.

 

For me, personally, the modern era perseveration on "evidence" misses much of the point.  Yes, Sumerian ruins support ziggurats kinda-sorta like Babel.  Yes, there are Babylonian inscriptions about a king named Nebuchadnezzar, and Persian records supporting the existence and decrees of Cyrus.  And to close out the end of the Temple story, there are Roman records of a Jewish uprising and the sacking of the Temple and some kind of last zealots' stand in Masada.  So what?  Those scant independently verifiable historical markers are nice, I guess, to sort of place the Jewish narratives into global time, but they are hardly the core messages of the narratives or what they mean to us and to me.  Those scraps of parchment and worn stones are not where my sustenance comes from, KWIM?  

 

The whole exercise seems rather weird to me.

 

This is what I thought with regard to the scenario of finding out there was no Jesus. My thought was that the essence of the faith would not require Jesus to be true to be meaningful. After all, most believers don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve and talking snake and particularly interesting fruit, and yet the essence of the story is not lost. Quill said for her it was a big deal, though. It chipped away at her faith. I think for some, it might be a matter of a "fact" being exposed as a "farce," while for others, it would be a matter of replacing faith with mythology, and with others it would simply be relegated to metaphor. The metaphor route has certainly been done before, and continues every time a claim is undeniably understood to be false. I think now it's simply an interesting discussion of its own for a few people, but seeing those few people's posts respond to each other gives it the impression that it's somehow the foundation of the whole thing, or of some elevated importance. I don't think that's it at all. I think it's just a series of replies to one little portion that Stacey brought up in the beginning of the thread.

[Charlie]

Specifically he talks about Josephus and Tacitus as the two important external texts. Both mention Jesus as a real person who was founder of Christianity and both are considered very reliable historical sources.  What that means is that at that time, reliable and disinterested chroniclers considered him real, not made up. 

 

He implies but doesn't say it, but they are being used as corroboration for the more basic evidence - the internal texts, which means to a large degree the NT.  From the perspective of a historian, those aren't religious documents, they are historical documents, and they too are important evidence. (Or really, a group of evidences, they were only gathered together later)   We know that many people and events described were real, they were written with the intent to describe what were seen as historical events (unlike some kinds of texts are.)  

 

The third evidence he describes is the existence of Christianity itself - even without any other evidence, it would suggest that a person like that had existed, and if we think he didn't it requires another plausible explanation, and those don't seem to be convincing for historians.

 

There is a fourth evidence which he implies but again doesn't say straight out, which is the Christian textual tradition.  In the early Christian period, all kinds of people were trying to discredit the claims of Christianity.  The single most effective thing they could have done is claim Jesus didn't exist, and that is what we do not see them doing.  Also - and again he is probably less than clear about this - these discussions are happening within the context, not always of people who say Jesus personally, but one person removed from them.  So, writers who were the students of Jesus disciples.  It's as if your university prof was a student of Derrida. You probably have a sense of whether they lied about that.  Now, those writers might have been telling lies themselves, but no one, even those we might expect to do so, is disputing those basic facts.

 

In terms of the study of ancient history, this is a good case - these things are all within the parameters of what we accept for ancient philosophy more generally.  So, if we want to argue with them, we are really creating problems for the whole study of ancient history.

 

Thank you for sharing this. I was hoping there was something new, as these arguments have been addressed and refuted already (not here).

[Pam in CT]

This is what I thought with regard to the scenario of finding out there was no Jesus. My thought was that the essence of the faith would not require Jesus to be true to be meaningful. After all, most believers don't believe in a literal Adam and Eve and talking snake and particularly interesting fruit, and yet the essence of the story is not lost. Quill said for her it was a big deal, though. It chipped away at her faith. I think for some, it might be a matter of a "fact" being exposed as a "farce," while for others, it would be a matter of replacing faith with mythology, and with others it would simply be relegated to metaphor. The metaphor route has certainly been done before, and continues every time a claim is undeniably understood to be false. I think now it's simply an interesting discussion of its own for a few people, but seeing those few people's posts respond to each other gives it the impression that it's somehow the foundation of the whole thing, or of some elevated importance. I don't think that's it at all. I think it's just a series of replies to one little portion that Stacey brought up in the beginning of the thread.

 

 

Well, to the bolded, again, that "no independent third party corroborating evidence exists" does not mean that "there was no Jesus."

 

Absence of evidence cannot prove anything, positive or negative.

 

Certainly as a historical figure... Jews at the time were pretty marginal to the bigger Roman picture, and Jesus (even within the sacred account) lived in a rather marginal Jewish area, and (again within the sacred account) was an itinerant preacher.  That no contemporary records survived that spoke about an itinerant preacher of a marginalized minority who gathered followers is not so surprising.  Whether or not independent corroborating evidence exists, the idea of an itinerant Jewish teacher collecting followers around a hopeful message of compassion and care is not at all hard for me to accept as possible.  Nor that such an itinerant teacher might live outside the orbit and scrutiny of Roman record-keeping authorities. 

 

 

 

But I take your larger point.  And it's just a different way of attaching to a faith tradition, I guess.

[Charlie]

Well, to the bolded, again, that "no independent third party corroborating evidence exists" does not mean that "there was no Jesus."

 

Absence of evidence cannot prove anything, positive or negative.

 

Certainly as a historical figure... Jews at the time were pretty marginal to the bigger Roman picture, and Jesus (even within the sacred account) lived in a rather marginal Jewish area, and (again within the sacred account) was an itinerant preacher.  That no contemporary records survived that spoke about an itinerant preacher of a marginalized minority who gathered followers is not so surprising.  Whether or not independent corroborating evidence exists, the idea of an itinerant Jewish teacher collecting followers around a hopeful message of compassion and care is not at all hard for me to accept as possible.  Nor that such an itinerant teacher might live outside the orbit and scrutiny of Roman record-keeping authorities. 

 

 

 

But I take your larger point.  And it's just a different way of attaching to a faith tradition, I guess.

 

My bad, I meant to say what you're saying. "Imagine you found out Jesus didn't exist..." Not, "Well, since we know Jesus didn't exist, what are your thoughts?" It was meant to be more of a thought-experiment than a statement of fact. And I agree with you about proof.

 

So, yeah. High five? Fist bump? Cheers?  ;-)

 

[Bluegoat]

Successful for who?  Certainly not for the slaves or those who are raped?

Successful by what measure?

In what conditions would you consider slavery and/or rape to produce very successful societies, in a way that could not be done without the slavery or rape?  That is, what conditions would make slavery and/or rape necessary for a successful society?

 

I am trying to understand what you are picturing here.

 

Sucessful for the species, or for individuals, in terms of propagating their genetic material.

 

It's within the context of the idea that morality is an (only) an evolutionary development to encourage us to behave in ways that make the human species successful, for example we feel a moral aversion to murder because if we went around murdering each other that would tend to make us less successful as social beings.  You can look at it on an individual level too, if avoiding murder helps people pass on their genes, means they have or raise more offspring, that tendency would tend to spread in the population.

 

I think personally there is some truth to that, but I also think it falls down in two related ways.  One is that we can see that there are lots of societies where there is or has been rape, murder, and slavery, and they have prospered as a group - its really worked for them.  They aren't nice for the oppressed, but if you go to war, kill your neighbours, and take their agricultural land, you will be spreading your genetic material around a lot more and they won't be at all.  And as we might expect, in some societies some or all of those behaviors are considered ok. 

 

Also - we still see a lot of the desire to rape, murder, and enslave, both in individuals and within whole groups. It seems like evolution has allowed those impulses to remain, and probably because they are useful in terms of evolutionary success.  If they were really liabilities, they would be selected against.

 

I think if we honestly want to make an argument from evolution, we are really committing ourselves to saying that whatever allows the successful propagation of genes is moral, whatever it means for the unfortunate individuals who get snuffed out. 

[Bluegoat]

Thank you for sharing this. I was hoping there was something new, as these arguments have been addressed and refuted already (not here).

 

So I am curious - do you generally consider history or ancient history to be refuted?  It uses the same methods for other areas of study.

[Charlie]

So I am curious - do you generally consider history or ancient history to be refuted?  It uses the same methods for other areas of study.

 

No. I don't generally consider history or ancient history to be refuted.

 

ETA: With the caveat - I'm not a historian! So take my ignorance into account (read: Please don't play "gotcha" with me, lol!)

Edited January 4, 2017 by Charlie

[Pam in CT]

fist bump.

[Onceuponatime]

Addressing the absence of evidence: There are times when the absence of evidence proves evidence of absence. Let's say some one claims a fork is in a drawer. You go look in the drawer and there should be a fork if the claim is true, but there is no fork. In the same way, if historical and scientific claims are made, often there are certain conditions that are expected, indeed that must be met, for the claim to be true. If those conditions can be proven to be absent, the claim can reasonably be deemed false. Can it be said that there is 100% certainty? No, that cannot be said about anything, because of human limitations.

 

No one here is claiming to know that Jesus positively did not exist. They are merely pointing out that so far no fork has been found in the drawer. But until *concrete* evidence of the fork is found, why should anyone base their life and actions on the possibility that it exists?

 

Again, none of the extrabiblical references to Jesus that have been mentioned were made by people who met him, or saw him. They weren't even written during his supposed lifetime. Most of them are just simple sentences referring to christian groups. Some of them are disputed and thought to be inserted additions to the texts they are found in. At most they prove the groups existed but not the man. They say next to nothing about Jesus's personal life, teachings, death, and supposed resurrection. They certainly do not prove divinity, miracles, resurrection of the dead, or eternal life.

 

Even if it is granted that a man named Jesus may have lived somewhere around the time attributed to him and may have had some influence on the religious culture of his time, so what? It's a story, just like many others with legendary qualities. Does it matter to my personal life if Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan actually lived and are based on real people? Is it important for anyone to believe that they were? To me, and others, until we have a very good reason to believe it matters, it won't

[Lady Florida.]

Addressing the absence of evidence: There are times when the absence of evidence proves evidence of absence. Let's say some one claims a fork is in a drawer. You go look in the drawer and there should be a fork if the claim is true, but there is no fork. In the same way, if historical and scientific claims are made, often there are certain conditions that are expected, indeed that must be met, for the claim to be true. If those conditions can be proven to be absent, the claim can reasonably be deemed false. Can it be said that there is 100% certainty? No, that cannot be said about anything, because of human limitations.

 

No one here is claiming to know that Jesus positively did not exist. They are merely pointing out that so far no fork has been found in the drawer. But until *concrete* evidence of the fork is found, why should anyone base their life and actions on the possibility that it exists?

 

Again, none of the extrabiblical references to Jesus that have been mentioned were made by people who met him, or saw him. They weren't even written during his supposed lifetime. Most of them are just simple sentences referring to christian groups. Some of them are disputed and thought to be inserted additions to the texts they are found in. At most they prove the groups existed but not the man. They say next to nothing about Jesus's personal life, teachings, death, and supposed resurrection. They certainly do not prove divinity, miracles, resurrection of the dead, or eternal life.

 

Even if it is granted that a man named Jesus may have lived somewhere around the time attributed to him and may have had some influence on the religious culture of his time, so what? It's a story, just like many others with legendary qualities. Does it matter to my personal life if Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan actually lived and are based on real people? Is it important for anyone to believe that they were? To me, and others, until we have a very good reason to believe it matters, it won't

 

All of this. And for those would say why not follow Jesus "just in case"? -  well, what of other religions? Why not follow Islam just in case Muhammad was right? Or Judaism just in case the Messiah still hasn't come? Or Buddhism just in case? Or Hinduism just in case? Why pick the one religious system that happens to be dominant in your country of origin as the right one? That seems rather convenient.

 

As a pp said (was it you Onceuponatime?), they can't all be right but they can all be wrong. Until I see that fork in the drawer I'm going on the belief that they're all wrong. No just in case for me. That's atheism in a nutshell.

[Pam in CT]

Addressing the absence of evidence: There are times when the absence of evidence proves evidence of absence. Let's say some one claims a fork is in a drawer. You go look in the drawer and there should be a fork if the claim is true, but there is no fork. In the same way, if historical and scientific claims are made, often there are certain conditions that are expected, indeed that must be met, for the claim to be true. If those conditions can be proven to be absent, the claim can reasonably be deemed false. Can it be said that there is 100% certainty? No, that cannot be said about anything, because of human limitations.

 

...

 

 

:lol:

 

OK, zero fork in the drawer probably-- almost certainly-- does mean zero fork in the drawer.  To my mind that is measurement matter, not an evidentiary one, but at some point everything does come down to definitions, doesn't it.  This is yet another manifestation of how utterly unsuited is my disposition to the philosophical life.  Carry on.

[Pam in CT]

All of this. And for those would say why not follow Jesus "just in case"? -  well, what of other religions? Why not follow Islam just in case Muhammad was right? Or Judaism just in case the Messiah still hasn't come? Or Buddhism just in case? Or Hinduism just in case? Why pick the one religious system that happens to be dominant in your country of origin as the right one? That seems rather convenient.

 

As a pp said (was it you Onceuponatime?), they can't all be right but they can all be wrong. Until I see that fork in the drawer I'm going on the belief that they're all wrong. No just in case for me. That's atheism in a nutshell.

 

 

I would never suggest that anybody follow any religion "just in case."  Only that there are other reasons to attach than "evidence."

 

Which may be too much of a hijack off from the OP atheist question to pursue, so I'll stop pounding the good-and-dead horse now...

[Mergath]

If we have a discussion here about global warming, or the age of the earth, and some people argue that there is no climate change and the climate scientists don't know what they are talking about, or that all the geologists are wrong, inevitably, and IMO quite rightly, people will point out that the person saying this is not qualified and usually isn't understanding the data, and that if they are going to disagree with the consensus of experts they really need to have a very solid argument.

 

I haven't argued anything about Jesus theologically, so I don't see how that is a Christians argument. This is a historical, secular question. I actually find it really perplexing, and sometimes a little embarrassing, that people who would be horrified at the disregard for scholarship in a discussion on science do exactly the same thing, complete with conspiracy theories, in a discussion about history. 

 

I also think there is a big difference between agreeing with a theory, religious or otherwise, and understanding it accurately.  I tend to assume that most people, if they care to discuss it at all, actually want to understand accurately what a particular thought system is saying (or not saying), and what the language means.  I mean, that's the pre-requisite I think for any kind of discussion or even to form an opinion.

 

I was going to type a long reply, but I honestly don't have the energy today to argue with people who have zero interest in actually considering differing opinions. For the record though, there's a heck of a lot more evidence for climate change than there is for the existence of Jesus.

[Lady Florida.]

I would never suggest that anybody follow any religion "just in case."  Only that there are other reasons to attach than "evidence."

 

Which may be too much of a hijack off from the OP atheist question to pursue, so I'll stop pounding the good-and-dead horse now...

 

No, I know you wouldn't/didn't. It's something I hear from Christians - it's Pascal's Wager. I mentioned it just to head off those comments.

Edited January 4, 2017 by Lady Florida.