I Try My Very Best to Focus on What's Important and to Be Fair and Balanced With the Arguments.
If there is one thing about me you should know it's this: my aim is to be fair and balanced with my intellectual opponents. Now I know such an aim is probably impossible, but I aim at this anyway. If someone can show where I mischaracterized his or her arguments I'm the first person who wants to know.
What grates on me to no end is people who don't give a damn to do likewise with my arguments. These people, on both sides of the fence, get little more than my distain. I have been known to berate them, ridicule and taunt them. I probably shouldn't do this, but sometimes I cannot resist. That's just who I am. That's what I sometimes do with people who are intellectually dishonest with what I say.
I am first and foremost a freethinker. That's who I am. I left the cookie-cutter mentality of defending the party line when I left the church. Whether you are a skeptic or a Christian if your arguments are lame I will probably point them out. Why? Because I am interested in the truth. If you don't like this then I cannot help you. If I am wrong show me. Unlike many people who debate these issues I am willing to listen. I really am. But you must be respectful; you must not purposely (or ignorantly) mischaracterize my arguments; you must try to be objective with the evidence; and you must show yourself to be willing to think through the issues rather than quoting from proof-texts.
Recently I have been defending the belief that there was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet in the first century named Jesus who was the basis for the Christian cult itself. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong show me. I'm interested in every issue but I can only focus on the important ones. Some of the vitriol coming from the skeptical crowd reminds me of how Christians have divided into separate denominations over and over about mere trifles. I guess we're all just humans after all. We want everyone to agree with us. If someone is out of line we want him to get in line. If that person doesn't do this we tend to write him off as being ignorant, because we tend to think it's because of ignorance he disagrees. This saddens me to no end. I have no solutions to this type of fundamentalist thinking, but it is fundamentalist thinking! It's probably just part of the human condition. We want people to think exactly like us, even on unimportant trifles. And if they don't we write them off, even if we agree with them 90% of the time. Is that stupid or what? There I go myself. *slap* Why can't we at least be smart enough to choose our battles wisely and focus on the majors rather than on the minors? Knowing the difference between them is a mark of an educated person, although not even that seems to be enough.
What grates on me to no end is people who don't give a damn to do likewise with my arguments. These people, on both sides of the fence, get little more than my distain. I have been known to berate them, ridicule and taunt them. I probably shouldn't do this, but sometimes I cannot resist. That's just who I am. That's what I sometimes do with people who are intellectually dishonest with what I say.
I am first and foremost a freethinker. That's who I am. I left the cookie-cutter mentality of defending the party line when I left the church. Whether you are a skeptic or a Christian if your arguments are lame I will probably point them out. Why? Because I am interested in the truth. If you don't like this then I cannot help you. If I am wrong show me. Unlike many people who debate these issues I am willing to listen. I really am. But you must be respectful; you must not purposely (or ignorantly) mischaracterize my arguments; you must try to be objective with the evidence; and you must show yourself to be willing to think through the issues rather than quoting from proof-texts.
Recently I have been defending the belief that there was an apocalyptic doomsday prophet in the first century named Jesus who was the basis for the Christian cult itself. I could be wrong. If I'm wrong show me. I'm interested in every issue but I can only focus on the important ones. Some of the vitriol coming from the skeptical crowd reminds me of how Christians have divided into separate denominations over and over about mere trifles. I guess we're all just humans after all. We want everyone to agree with us. If someone is out of line we want him to get in line. If that person doesn't do this we tend to write him off as being ignorant, because we tend to think it's because of ignorance he disagrees. This saddens me to no end. I have no solutions to this type of fundamentalist thinking, but it is fundamentalist thinking! It's probably just part of the human condition. We want people to think exactly like us, even on unimportant trifles. And if they don't we write them off, even if we agree with them 90% of the time. Is that stupid or what? There I go myself. *slap* Why can't we at least be smart enough to choose our battles wisely and focus on the majors rather than on the minors? Knowing the difference between them is a mark of an educated person, although not even that seems to be enough.
10 comments:
Hi John, good to see comments come back. This post seems to be asking for a dialogue :)
If that person doesn't do this we tend to write him off as being ignorant, because we tend to think it's because of ignorance he disagrees.
You've admitted that you're genuinely ignorant about the arguments of the mythicists so is it really a mistake to say that you disagree because of this ignorance? I know you're both more educated and more intelligent than most people arguing about this topic so please don't take this as an insult, just that even the very best of us have blind spots and you've said yourself that this may be one.
I can see a lot of frustration in your discussions about this topic, but to what end? The way I see it (as someone that doesn't have the background to do the research himself), you've presented a strong argument for the existence of an apocalyptic preacher at the heart of Christianity but your argument assumes that Paul and his audience believed in a worldy Jesus. Doherty and the mythicists argue that Paul actually believed that Jesus was not of this world but an intermediary and they use his writing to show this explains the facts far better. A historicist such as yourself can talk about standards of evidence for historical claims and can show quotes about "brothers" but this is just talking across each other since it never addresses any of the points the mythicists make. I think your opponents acknowledge your points with cursory shrug since they are largely incidental leaving the two of you talking past each other. You not seeing why your very good points are not treated seriously, they not seeing why their arguments aren't addressed.
I can see the tension and frustration build on both sides as it looks like everything you say is being ignored and in a way it is. But I assure you that your opponents are seeing exactly the same thing as you appear to be ignoring everything they say. And in the way of Internet-based discussions the situation devolves quickly as both sides unleash their arsenal of flame weapons spewing accusations and insults, virtually guaranteeing that neither side will come out with anything other than contempt for their opponents. That's no way to search for the truth.
Why not avoid the issue entirely until you can brush up on your opponent's arguments? Avoid internet discussions for now. You've posted about how badly your views can be misunderstood when people just read a summary of your book and in forums you aren't even getting a summary, just some rapidly constructed bullet points by an amateur or Net Loon. If you do some research and are able to concisely and accurately state the views of your opponents before countering them you'll get a much, much better reception, I guarantee it.
If someone can show where I mischaracterized his or her arguments I'm the first person who wants to know.
For a start, the mythicists I'm aware of are not arguing that merely a lack of evidence means Jesus didn't exist. I get the feeling that's what you believe their position is, but that's incorrect. If that was their argument, I think you would have won your case, hands down. Instead, the way I understand it, mythicists argue that the treatment of Jesus in the earliest writings is not of a living preacher but of a spiritual one, accessible only via revelation. They argue that the best explanation of the many bizarre passages of Paul's writing is that he and his audience all understood that Jesus was not historical but mythical. They show that this is not only consistent with the gospels and all other evidence but this allows us to make sense of passages which are difficult or impossible to understand if we imagine that Jesus was historical.
A brief (brief!) summary, take it as you would a summary of your own book, as a starting point: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm
Anyway, I hope you found the comment-free period refreshing and have been enjoying the holidays. Happy New Year and thanks for all of your insight and conclusions, even those I may not share :)
'....and you must show yourself to be willing to think through the issues rather than quoting from proof-texts.'
I see.
So how do we examine the 'textual evidence' without 'quoting from proof-texts'?
Let me quote a proof-text.
Galatians 1
18Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother.
Is this an example of a proof-text that people are not allowed to quote from?
Just to be clear, when I wrote this post I was not referring to anyone who has ever posted here at DC as far as I know. I was refering to a particular skeptical forum, a blog site owner, and a commenter on the Opposing Views site.
And I never said I was ignorant about this issue. I might have said there is more to learn or something, but I could say that about any subject.
John, I have some things I'd like you to think about. I don't know if you've noticed my comments about your discussion with a "blog site owner" but I come down on the side of that certain blog site owner, though not without some caveats. You really should read my comment on the blog in question, but I'll explain it here, too.
I've read your arguments rather thoroughly since my initial response to you (linked below) and I think you're making two very serious errors.
First, you've admitted that you are not well versed in mythicist arguments, and you display this lack of knowledge when you get into spats with mythicists. I'm not going to validate your exchange with a blog site owner by calling it an argument because that implies the logical exchange of ideas. No ideas were exchanged because you didn't address or refute any of his arguments. You just restated your opinions.
Please bear in mind that I'm saying this to you in a spirit of constructive criticism so that we can all get along and get on with the business of finding true answers to legitimate questions. I hate it when people have ego spats, and from where I sit, you threw the first stone in the fight you're talking about.
I don't know who's right in the question of Jesus mythicism, but I have a question for you and others who come down hard on either side. How much does it really matter?
Think about that before you jump to a conclusion. We're all atheists and skeptics here, right? Would the existence of a historical Jesus change our minds about God? Would the nonexistence of a historical Jesus change our minds?
Your second mistake, in my opinion, is a matter of broad perspective. The fact is, this is an issue dripping with angst and ego, and I can't for my life figure out why a bunch of atheists would get into such a huge snit about it. If there is or is not enough evidence for a historical Jesus, so be it, but everyone reading this knows that a Christian can be logically and philosophically whipped into a Self-Pwnd Frappe with or without even cracking a bible, much less mentioning Jesus.
John, if you want to get into academic history and make a case for a historical Jesus, please do. However, I have to ask you in all seriousness if you are prepared to stake your professional reputation on what amounts to your feelings about the interpretation of academic arguments. Do you really have the epistemic right to make the proclamation? Please remember when you were a Christian how hard it was to see logic when someone talked to you about the very emotionally charged issue of God. You weren't that way just because you were a Christian. That's human nature, and you're still subject to it.
John, you and the blog site owner had a temper tantrum playground fight. Both of you are at fault for letting your emotions get in the way of reason. However, he has reason on his side. You haven't dealt with (or apparently read) what he's said. I'm not saying his position is right. I'm saying you haven't done anything to prove it wrong. Please remember John that the most well meaning of people have spread opinion to the point that it became perceived as fact. Please, unless you're prepared to make an academic issue of it, don't muddy the waters of Jesus' historicity with less than scholarly analysis. Your voice is too loud. Do the right thing and just shrug your shoulders when someone asks what you think about it.
I offer you the following link (http://allthingsstupidandreligious.blogspot.com/2008/11/thoughts-on-jesus-historicity.html )to my own thoughts on Jesus as a historical figure, and I invite you to consider them, particularly since they come from someone much like yourself -- a former Christian apologist who has devoted much of his life to study -- and more importantly, someone who knows when he has the epistemic rights to make a claim, and when "I don't know" is the only acceptable answer.
You'll notice that I've also addressed as many of your arguments as seemed relevant in a detailed post here: http://allthingsstupidandreligious.blogspot.com/2008/12/response-to-john-loftus-historical.html
Ham, there you go misrepresenting me. I only said there was more to learn and I could say that about any issue I write about.
I don't know who's right in the question of Jesus mythicism, but I have a question for you and others who come down hard on either side. How much does it really matter?
It doesn't matter a bit to me at all. Since that's the case I can be more objective about the evidence. And since I can be more objective about the evidence Christians will listen to me. They are my target audience. I do not think people understand this.
And you know what? I have even been accused of having "blind faith" and accused of choosing to think Jesus existed against the evidence because I want to impress Christians who are my target audience! Wow! The extent that people who disagree with me will go to discredit an informed opinion is strangely similar on both sides of the fence. And this is something I'll not have a part in. My beliefs are sincerely held ones.
To be honest I'm pissed off.
Hambydammit, I didn't publish what you wrote because I had to cool off before responding and because I'm pretty much done with this topic for now. I do not like how you've treated me but I'll comment on a few of the things you wrote.
Ham said...I'm sure that you've read quite a few books by various historians, as have I, but does that qualify you to use your considerable influence to proclaim that your interpretation of the various arguments is the better one?
Is that what this is about? That since I have "considerable influence" I should not make a case unless I'm qualified to speak? Thanks for saying I have such influence. I don't claim to. But even Einstein wrote a book of opinions and ideas. Would you say he shouldn't have done so?
Ham said...I'm sure you did study antiquities and literature in your theology degrees, but are you really qualified as a Jesus scholar?
See above. Don't get so bent out of shape here. My views are well argued. They are the ones the overwhelming peer-reviewed scholars accept. I fear my friend Carrier could become marginalized as a scholar if he doesn't make a strong case. What's wrong with my concern for him? His scholarship is too good for that and for our cause. If he becomes marginalized people will write him off and his credibility will be in need of repair. I do care about that. YOU should care about that too. But apparently you want an actual scholar to quote from who defends what you believe regardless of what happens to him. In the minds of many other scholars he may be treated like a Holocaust denier, rightly or wrongly, and that's bad for atheism I think, since the historicity of Jesus is a non-issue to me.
Ham said...I don't believe you are qualified to address them (mythicists). If this is the case, then you aren't prepared to make a substantive claim about Jesus' historicity because you don't know both sides.
I deny this, although I have more to learn about the issue. You continue to claim I'm ignorant. That's what Christians claim too, you know. Why do they do so? Because they read a few paragraphs I write and disagree, that's why. Now I do back up what I say in my book, but until they read it they will think I'm ignorant, and they do. Now you come along and claim the same thing, but because I have not written a book on the topic to show you I'm not ignorant you can claim that I am. I cannot say all I know unless I wrote a book on a topic. And it's not true that someone who disagrees with someone else is ignorant anyway. Are the overwhelming number of scholars ignorant too? Are Richard Bauckham, N.T. Wright, Dom Crossan, Dale Allison, Bart Ehrman all ignorant? Get a grip, okay?
Ham said...Are you prepared to defend your views against mythicist scholars, and if so, would you offer arguments or disagreement?
I think I have done so. Do not think I'm ignorant on this topic and do not be so ignorant as to say I cannot write what I think about any topic I want to do so. I have and I will.
Ham said...I accuse you of having less than enough knowledge to have epistemic rights to your claim. There's a very, very big difference. You're clearly well read, and I believe you've done a great thing for atheism. I love your site, and I think you have an incredibly compelling story to tell theists.
Thank you for the compliment, but I see no basis for you to tell me to basically shut up...none at all and I bristle at such a thing.
Ham said...I just don't think you're qualified to weigh in on Jesus' historicity. Please, if I'm wrong prove me wrong, and I will recant, but I have yet to see you even address a mythicist position with anything other than a statement of disagreement. That's not scholarly rebuttal. That's seeing who gets the last word.
Again, you sound just like some of the Christians who visit here. Yeah, that's right, I'm ignorant, I don't know what I'm talking about, I should just shut up until I write a book on a topic. Right.
Go away.
Do you deny saying this:
John Loftus said: "I have stated my present understanding as best as I could without doing the research needed in writing one. I think my conclusion would hold up if I did the needed research…"
http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2008/12/jesus-project.html
No. What's the big deal? Have you wrote a book on this issue? You seem sure of yourself and you act as if you are informed. Can't make the needed distinctions here? Didn't think so.
[Lest you have written one then let me ask if you have any epistemic rights to make any claim at all on any subject that you have not done so].
In my opinion you are clearly expressing idiocy. So why should I accept anything else you say?
YOU should care about that too. But apparently you want an actual scholar to quote from who defends what you believe regardless of what happens to him.
I want an actual scholar to directly address the mythicist arguments. I don't care what conclusion she reaches in fact I would prefer to read some scholars who are familiar with the argument and reject it. Can you think of any?
I've brought this up in the past and tracked down the references at my library but was always disappointed. None of them show signs that they've read let alone understood the mythicists. Instead they present the non-biblical citations, cite some passages of the bible such as "brothers" and argue that this is sufficient. In other circumstances I would agree but since these are wholly compatible with a mythicist position and none of these address any of the major arguments, I'm left feeling like the author is tilting at strawmen.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, if an historian can't provide a reasonable summary of the mythicist argument then they can't possibly defend against it. You can levy insults but I really don't think I'm saying anything controversial.
Apparently no one took to heart what I said originally here:
What grates on me to no end is people who don't give a damn to do likewise with my arguments. These people, on both sides of the fence, get little more than my distain. I have been known to berate them, ridicule and taunt them. I probably shouldn't do this, but sometimes I cannot resist. That's just who I am. That's what I sometimes do with people who are intellectually dishonest with what I say.
The mythicists and those sympathetic to them that I have met on the web behave like some of the most fervent believers I know. They are not objective with the facts; they treat people who disagree as if they are ignorant; they fail to listen; they twist and turn the statements of those who disagree; and they act like a cult in that they personally attack someone who disagrees just because he disagrees.
If you who are mistreating me were in a forum that was representative of what scholars think you would all be laughed at. As it stands I alone must bear this treatment because this is not a representative forum. I'm sure there are many historical examples of a person who was on the right side of history who was ill treated for not bowing to pressure to conform. I think Carrier is probably going to hurt himself in the eyes of the scholarly community and that's too bad. He might forever be known as a freethinker, not a scholar. I alone seem to be concerned about this for I think a lot of him.
I'm content though to have my informed opinion on this issue, one which very few people criticizing me could dispassionately tell me what that is. It's a non-issue to me.
Post a Comment