Are Skeptics Dogmatic Too?

I'm finding that some skeptics are just as dogmatic in claiming Jesus did not exist as Christians are who claim the Gospels are completely reliable. I've spent way too much time on this topic as it is, but see what you think of the discussion right here. [Edit] Before you comment below please read enough of that thread to see what's going on. What do you really think?

32 comments:

Charlie said...

Yes.

Bart said...

John, I appreciate your thoughtful approach to this subject.

I've mentioned before that I was raised secular, and have never had a belief. I always assumed that Jesus was a myth. As I grew, some christians would mention Tacitus, and Josephus. I read about how some think they are forgeries, and how the gospels were written almost one hundred years after the supposed death of Jesus. And how the bible wasn't composed for many hundreds of years. It all pointed to a made up person from my point of view.

After careful reading of your position, and the arguments during the past month, I have changed my position. After careful re-evaluation, I think that there was quite likely an individual who was responsible for the origins of the Jesus of the bible. I still strongly doubt that any of the quotes attributed to him have any historical value, and were fabricated to 'flesh out' their messiah.

I love it when I discover that I am wrong about something. It's exciting to discover that I can change, that I can accept evidence contrary to my position, evaluate it, and come to a new conclusion.

Thanks for the mental workout. No idea is worth keeping if it can't be drug through the mud, shaken off, and still hold together.

Haecceitas said...

Jesus mythicism is the young earth creationism of the atheists.

Erp said...

Yes there is a certain subset of atheists (I can't quite call them skeptics) that can be extremely dogmatic. I think it can sometimes be an overreaction. We were lied to becomes we were lied to about everything.

I've been tussling with someone who denies that Nazareth existed over in PZ Myers blog.

Bloviator said...

I won't say dogmatic, but certainly firmly held beliefs.

Am I the only one who sees a correlation between dogmatism and fervent belief patterns?

Regarding Jesus, I think it more likely there was a preacher who was the kernel of the movement which became christianity, but I couldn't say who that preacher was.

Undoubtedly the narrative character of the synoptic gospels, and the full-fledged theological discourse that is the gospel of John suggest mythic development (at least to me), but I think it less likely that christian cultic practices developed out of thin air than that there existed a charismatic originator of said cult (all the while admitting I could be wrong).

My problem with the use of Pauline epistles to debunk the existence of a corporeal Jesus is I think it plausible that Paul was the preacher responsible for the cult. Either way, to my thinking, the idea of a cult developing without a 'first cause' (pardon the reference...) leaves us with the premise of a religious practice developed by committee.

And who were the members of this committee? And what would have been the practical value of creating this belief system and referencing it to a non-existent, itinerant preacher?

Given those questions, and the incorporation of pagan rituals and beliefs (from virgin births to resurrection), I personally find it MORE LIKELY there was a charismatic leader who was arrested and killed, and whose followers mythologized him and his exploits, and that those stories, finding their way into a more Hellenized world, had levels of accretion which ultimately lead to the development of the catholic church.

The mythic path has too many open questions for me to give it credence.

busterggi said...

No.

Show me the evidence that Jesus is real & I consider it. But if it looks like hogwash to me, as it has so far, I'm not going to change my mind.

As for a human being named Jesus, well Yeshua was a pretty common name but the Jesus of the bible isn't a human being.

Philip R Kreyche said...

Charlie, do you not consider yourself a skeptic of any kind?

Reasonably Aaron said...

Hi John, long time lurker - first time poster.

Although history is set in stone, our understanding/recollection of it certainly isn't. Given this we cannot assume that one event really did happen beyond all doubt. A scientific outlook would place probabilities on the chance that certain positions are true (Jesus as myth, Jesus as apocalyptic messiah, etc). Even in the modern time we have convicted criminals beyond all reasonable doubt only to have further evidence prove they were innocent.

I've yet to hear a killer argument that can silence the Jesus as Myth hypothesis, but still consider it less likely than competing explanations. Given this, I am willing to entertain and think through this hypothesis even if I do not believe it to be what happened. As freethinkers we need not be pigeon-holed into certain beliefs.

The ultra-skeptics are dogmatic in their rejection of everything historical but is this a problem? If Jesus was historical and God, this has implications in the here and now. No other historical claims are as important as this. Whether Jesus (or any other historical figure) was myth or man doesn't detract from the positive messages and the lessons we can learn from the texts.

Denying Jesus' existence is also a good way to get on a Christians nerve (implying they are worshipping a myth), especially those of the JP Holding type. Why talk about the "empty tomb" when you can just dismiss the entire argument on the basis that its all myth to begin with? Its a shortcut for lazy debaters.

The real question for me is, are the arguments for Jesus-as-myth convincing for the borderline Christian to rethink their position? (Or does it push them the other way)

Patrick said...

I think that yes, there are some skeptics who dogmatically dismiss the possibility of the historicity of Jesus, though I do not think that is true of MOST skeptics or atheists.

It seems entirely unlikely that the Jesus stories were made up out of whole cloth. It seems much more likely that one or more people served as the inspiration for the figure we know as Jesus.

Anonymous said...

You should all pick up a copy of "The Fundamentalist Mind" by Dr. Stephen Larsen, who goes into great detail about this very phenomenon. Basically, "religion" is not the problem per se, but rather the fundamentalist mindset that holds that there is only one valid way to view the world (mine). This affliction of rigidity can strike people of all persuasions, including atheists, and it's our real enemy, not necessarily religion. Once the defenses of ideological rigidity are worn away, the mind is opened to reason.

Anonymous said...

To me, it doesn't matter if he existed or not, it would matter if he were really the son of god, which I highly doubt. But yes, I do think people are dogmatic about the non-existence of Jesus. He may have existed, but if so, so what?

J said...

When it comes to mythology, such as the stories found in the Gospels, I work under the theory that every myth is based on some nugget of truth. There is just enough extra-Biblical evidence to support that there was a figurehead that spurned the original Christian movement. Begin a skeptic is good, and we should always demand evidence, and we should also have a threshold for when sufficient evidence has been presented by which we can change our minds on an issue.

kiwi said...

The comparison with YEC is laughable, Haecceitas. You have to put your head in the sand and sing la la la la la to make sure to ignore the overwhelming evidence supporting the old earth and evolution.

What's the evidence for the HJ? "It makes more sense to think that..." is not evidence. "It seems to me that..." is not evidence.

Of course, we can guess what is the most probable option. Personally I do think the failed apocalyptic teacher hypothesis makes sense. But so what...? At the end it's just a conjecture. There is simply no possible comparison with this and YEC (and needless to say, of the Holocaust as well!).

By the way, skeptics who are dogmatic should not be called skeptics in the first place.

District Supt. Harvey Burnett said...

John,

I have come to appreciate your balanced approach to not only this subject but to others. We still have differing opinions and you know that BUT I appreciate the fact that at least you are trying to be responsible with the information you present.

My first impression of some of the atheists that visit at times is that they are "religiously atheist" or "skeptic etc" and are "dogmatists" and "conspiracists"

I hate arguments constructed out of thin air such as Robert Price's and a few others that I've read here.

I say this, if we disagree, that's ok, but let's not pretend that things "evidences" don't exist and that others who have studied this stuff out are all a part of some "grand conspiracy" either for or against God.

Like I said you raise some good points on many subjects and I appreciate studying things out and looking at what I thought was settled, again.

That's keeps me moving and unlike what some of these characters think, I'm not afraid to admit when I'm wrong, left something out or approached something in a wrong manner.

The Christian should be aware that a person can reject the Christian faith while holding to the historicity of Jesus. I think that's what needs to be discovered because too many Christians think, "if you believe that Jesus is real then certainly you'll believe in him" and there may be any number of reasons why a person rejects Jesus as Lord. That's what we need to look at.

Anyway, just my thoughts and I appreciate your efforts too.

Darrin said...

No offense to the more careful minds over at the Rational Response Squad, but if you've ever read Rook Hawkins' work over there, you'd answer "yes" as well.

Charlie said...

Ummmm, yes Philip. I do consider myself deeply skeptical. But if there is plausible evidence for something, I would go with it. Reason takes primacy over skepticism.

stevec said...

spin is not some random internet nobody in this area. Tread with caution.

stevec said...

My own opinion is that it is undecidable whether Jesus existed or not, and to express a strong opinion one way or the other is to exercise faith, that is, to be more certain than the evidence warrants, which I consider to be a vice.

If I had to bet, I'd bet yes, he existed, and was more or less like David Koresh, or any of a hundred other charismatic leaders who get a bunch of followers, and just "lucky", that his cult was so successful after he died. But, it'd be a bet I made knowing that I might well lose. the information to form an opinion worth strongly defending just does not, and cannot exist. Writing alone cannot ever be strong evidence for anything simply because there is such a thing called "fiction."

stevec said...

My opinion: spin pwns you with this post (sorry, it's what I think.)

"Why is it that so many people to try this tack of baiting and shifting? "Give me a target to shoot at so I don't have to deal with my own conjectures." When people refuse as you do to get into specifics it usually means that you don't have any specifics.

I don't have a view on the issue. I know what the data is: a complex muddle of traditions without there being any fixed point from which to be able to extract evidence out of the muddle. Traditions are notorious for their multiplication once started. Can you look at the William Tell traditions or t he Robin Hood traditions and extract any historical evidence from them about the central figures? This doesn't mean that they did or did not exist. It means that the traditions aren't forthcoming. You can't do history with them."

Adrian said...

The whole thread already contains almost 100 posts (not counting the referenced links) and there are some frayed tempers and some unscholarly conduct. Was there something in specific you are thinking of?

I scanned all 4 pages and I don't see a lot of constructive dialog on either side. Yes, you've discussed your arguments in the OpposingViews site but I think you forget that the mythicist case is made elsewhere also. People are discussing conclusions, neither side is presenting an argument.

I see you come out and imply that anyone who disagrees with the consensus has the intellectual integrity of a Holocaust denier (something you've done in many different locations) so I don't think you're in a good position to be accusing others of closed-mindedness and dogmatism.

But we've had this discussion before. It is irksome that you still act as if people who have reached different conclusions are akin to Creationists even though, like Creationists, you haven't taken the time to understand your opponent's arguments. It's an especially bitter dose of irony to see you cite Richard Carrier's recommendation of your book as something we can trust when you must know that he thinks Jesus was a myth. Is his opinion only valuable when he says something you like, otherwise he's as dogmatic and blinded as a Holocaust denier?

Once everyone starts levelling personal attacks like this it devolves into a flamewar and everyone gets frustrated and upset. I think in this case there's more than enough mud to go around.


So what do I really think? I think that you owe it to yourself to properly understand the mythicist argument from an intelligent, cogent defender instead of relying on snippets from a web forum. I think you should remember that people whose opinion you ostensibly respect have reached different conclusions which should make you seriously consider that the consensus might be wrong. It shouldn't make you change your mind but I think you owe the other side a lot more respect than you've given it. At the very least I think it should make you back off on the wildly inflammatory comments.

Intelligent, educated, unbiased people can reach different conclusions after reviewing the same evidence. You act as if you've forgotten that sometimes.

Are there dogmatic sceptics? Yes, and in this case I think you're acting as dogmatic as anyone.

Trou said...

It seems like the major objection to there being a myth of Jesus is "It seems entirely unlikely that the Jesus stories were made up out of whole cloth." I’ll get to that shortly.

John, you seem to place a lot of credence in the authority of Biblical scholars to justify claiming a real Jesus. I shouldn’t have to remind you that these scholars are largely biased in their belief in the reality of Jesus and it would put a damper on their careers to claim a non-existent Christ for the most of them, so this appeal to authority doesn't work in this case. Also, slamming those who have done research outside of the normal halls of academia is poor form if you aren't going to debate the points and only the credentials.

Let me appeal to a respected authority of my own, Elaine Pagels, and what her book, "Gnostic Paul" reveals bout how the Valentiniuns interpreted Paul's writings. From reading her book I can think of a scenario in which someone like Paul, (whose conversion story and subsequent trip to Egypt sounds like an initiation cult experience like those of Dionysus and Mithras, by the way), would see the similarities between the mythology of the pagan religions of the day and Judaism. There are mentions of Joshua in the Old Testament coincidently leading the people into the Promised Land, a direct image of coming out of bondage (this world) into the Promised Land (the afterlife). This would be a good basis for a Jesus myth that Paul would fashion after the Heavenly or "Cosmic" Christ, the divine Archetypal Man known as "Adam Kadmon" in Gnostic teachings and the Kabala. Another figure in Judaism is Hosea which means Joshua. He had an interesting story of redeeming an unfaithful wife (representative of Israel or mankind in general). Also, in Zechariah we are told of a Joshua standing before the Angel of the Lord and after being accused by Satan of sin and rebuked for it, he is dressed in clean priestly garments, and is commanded to govern according to God's ways.

What if this reoccurring "salvation figure", (remember that Jesus is Greek for Joshua which means salvation), becomes an archetype that Paul uses to signify his Adam Kadmon? This gets kicked around, mixed with some sayings (Q), some apocalyptic writings, some Greek thinking then is fleshed out and given a pseudo history because every other religion has a god made flesh? You all realize, I hope, that all of the acts and sayings of Jesus were preexistent and were derived from other sources (at least I can’t think of any which weren’t).

There is little reason to think that Jesus was real, yet there is no way to say for sure that he wasn't. I choose to be a skeptic yet I could gladly believe that Jesus was an insignificant religious figure that got caught up in the gnostic/proto-orthodox argument and was used as the "real Jesus, son of god" to help the ignorant early orthodox Christians win a political battle over the more educated gnostics.
Something to think about but I don't really care if he was real or not. Jesus is to Santa as some insignificant figure is to St. Nicholas. This is to say, barely a resemblance.
But to answer your question, Sometimes.

Jeffrey Amos said...

In a related thread they have a poll on the probability of Jesus' existence. Over half said 40% or less, and I'd bet that a few Christians responded as well. (I voted 80%-100%.)

Is this because the Jesus-myth idea is really this common among atheists, or is it because FRDB is non-representative of atheists?

Faithless wonder said...

[Quote] Are Sceptic dogmatic too? [/quote]

As with all things the answer is neither fully yes nor fully no. There are indeed sceptics that are dogmatic; likewise some sceptics attempt to avoid such dogma.

The question of Jesus' existence is one that can be answered undeniably in the affirmative. There is more historical evidence to support the existence of Christ than of Julius Cesar.

However the question that we should be asking is "Was Jesus God-derived?" And for this we need to study the bible. Even as a firm sceptic I study the bible regularly even if only for the effect that the obviously fallacious stories have on me. It is simply an immunity booster against nonsense.

Perhaps I am being to hard because it actually is not nonsense. It is, at least in part, metaphor.

Take for example the walking on the water story. Did this really happen? If it did it would require that the laws of physics had been altered in a field contained to a very small and specific space and time. Such a leap of illogic that even an Olympian long jumper would not dare attempt it.

Otherwise we could alleviate the need for such a leap of faith by accepting the more likely explanation that the story is exactly that. It was, I suspect, written in deliberate metaphor.

The writers wished to portray Jesus as Godly and so employed the principle of the metaphor. The water represents the laws or forces of nature and by separating Jesus from the water they were attempting to convey to the reader that their friend was above and beyond the forces of nature and hence a God.

zilch said...

I don't really have a dog in this fight. It's not implausible that there was a person named Jesus who was the subject of the Gospels, and it's certainly historically interesting to try and put together as accurate a picture as possible of what happened. It seems unlikely, though, at this remove from the events, that we'll ever know with any certainty what went on. In any case, as I said at the other thread, we cannot meaningfully answer the question "did Jesus exist?" with either "yes" or "no". Obviously, yes: some person named Jesus existed. Equally obviously, no: no person named Jesus did everything claimed of him in the Bible. The truth is some complicated story in between that we're unlikely to ever know in detail.

More important to me is the influence that belief in a divine Jesus has in the world today. If some skeptics want to debunk the existence of Jesus as a man, more power to them; but I don't think that that is necessary, or even a particularly good strategy, for debunking Christianity.

Anonymous said...

Zilch said...If some skeptics want to debunk the existence of Jesus as a man, more power to them; but I don't think that that is necessary, or even a particularly good strategy, for debunking Christianity.

Exactly! As I said, I feel like I'm wasting my time even discussing it. I think I just wanted to present what I consider a more nuanced approach than what I've seen coming from anyone on either side of this issue. When I'm done, I hope to be done with it for good.

Brad Haggard said...

It's pretty obvious that there are dogmatic atheists out there. Just type in "atheist" in YouTube and you'll find it on full display.

What scares me a little is how much hero worship is becoming a part of that culture. Dawkins and Hitchens are gathering cult followings, using marketing to increase their base. Hey, it does sell a lot of books. It does seem like there is a similar mechanism involved in someone calling Hitchens "epic" or "legendary" (browse through some comments) and traditional religious devotion.

I think there is something inside of us that causes an "us-them" mentality as well. If someone is on the "other" side, then we have to discredit everything they say. It is clear in politics, and I think that it is mirrored on these sites.

Also, I think a lot of this debate doesn't hinge on what theory is the best, but who is the smartest. So many debaters just want their name out there and to defeat their opponent, irrespective of the arguments or evidence. So expecting someone on a blog like this to behave in a "scholarly" manner is wishful thinking. How many of our posts would make it through peer-review?

Of course, we're the reasonable, rational moderates in our areas...

Larry Hamelin said...

I don't need to read a 6 page thread to know that some atheists are stupid. Sometimes an atheist is someone with one fewer stupid belief than a theist.

But so what? What does that prove? Atheism is no magic key to intelligence, wit, and charm, will not whiten your teeth or cure the heartbreak of psoriasis.

Adrian said...

Exactly! As I said, I feel like I'm wasting my time even discussing it.

Until you have taken the time to learn and understand the mythicist argument, you will definitely be wasting your time because you cannot hope to mount a decent counter-argument. In this case, I think your inexperience shows.

If your larger goal is to debunk Christianity, this may be a waste of your time since it's not going to be something that will sway anyone.

Anonymous said...

First a few asides:

John: this is my first comment since you advised me by email that I could comment. Although I am using an internet "handle" you can know my identity as the person who asked in an email 'I hate a yes man , don't you?'

BB: Brilliant!

To several others: you have already made my point. I am just restating it in a different way that may have a cogency of it's own.

'The way' could be the tau. The way of the believer is faith. The way science skepticism. That is why the scientific thinker tests his ideas, by experiment if possible, by consulting the best scholarship and thinking if the ideas pertain to historical matters not subject to experimentation. The true skeptic is skeptical of his own opinions as well as those of others. And sometimes the honest inquirer must simply admit, "I don't know."

And hey, about the historical or mythological underpinnings of the Christ story, we don't know. Some of us say 60-40 for historical rabbi, some say 60-40 against same, some are more dogmatic in their positions. We can all trot out our scholars - I will refrain.

Having left the same denomination as John. I feel a little differently than he does about the idea that admitting to a real rabbi underlying the legendary Jesus opens a door for discussion with fundamental Christians. To me, admitting there was a real person behind the myth would still have gotten my mental door slammed in your face if you denied the Resurrection. Hey, still friends - we can disagree amicably. And of course this consideration has no bearing at all on whether there was a real person enlarged upon, but only on how best to dialogue with believers.

David Parker said...

John,

Yes to the post question.

Also, regarding your approach to debunking: pointing out things about skeptics attracts more Christian readers in my opinion. I could be wrong, but Christians are more likely to listen to someone who is critical of both sides, even if they disagree with them on other things. It gives one a sense of balance.

The more I study cognitive dissonance, the more I'm convinced that strong polemic rhetoric (e.g. popular new atheists and J.P Holding style apologists) causes the reader to think less critically and be more emotional about defending their deeply held beliefs.

So anyways, all that to say I think you are getting better at what you do John ;)

Charlie said...

Hey Stevec,

spin is not some random internet nobody in this area. Tread with caution.

Spin is a random nobody, just another internet pseudo-skeptic with neither the insight nor the proficiency in logic to deal with the complexity of these issues. As much as I disagree with several of John's conclusions, at least he rationally argued for his case -- that can't be said for spin.

Patrick said...

Trou,
Well put. I think the Santa Claus/St. Nicholas analogy is quite apt.

As many others have noted, I think it's unknowable whether or not "Jesus" ever existed. I stand by my judgment that it seems likely, to me, that there was some real person or people who became a framework upon which "Jesus" was built. But again, I could well be wrong on that.

We certainly have many examples (and we don't have to back that far) of real individuals whose reputation in death has exceeded that of their lives. Just to choose one, look at George Washington. We clearly know a lot about him that is historical, but how many fictional stories have been built up around him to make him seem like a nigh mythical figure?