Pharyngula

Posted by: Michael Hawkins | May 31, 2011 8:36 AM

What is really fundamental to all this is that the burden of proof lies with the one making the positive claim. You know this, Loftus knows this, and virtually everyone on this site knows this. And a great number of honest theologians know this, too. But present Russell's Teapot to the average Christian or Muslim and all of a sudden the burden of proof argument is invalid. It is not only the theist who needs to defend his claim, but now the atheist needs to somehow prove atheism. It boggles the mind.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/rmTtrfAMp.wJOKajTCnmgHw7HOE-#e9f78 | May 31, 2011 8:42 AM

So what Loftus is saying is "Indeed, when you haven't shown Jesus existed, it's silly to talk about the color of his socks .. BUT .. let me handle this, because I, as an expert, can show that what they say about the color of his socks is wrong, REGARDLESS of Jesus's existence"?

Posted by: Dillinger | May 31, 2011 8:50 AM

So, wait, Loftus says that you are totally entitled to be dismissive, but that you're being TOO dismissive? Are there intricate stata of dismissiveness that I'm currently unaware of? If he is right in his first point, that the Courtier's Reply is completely justified, then why does anyone need to elaborate?

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 8:55 AM

What I find particularily insulting is how Christianity is somehow superior to everything else, for some obscure reason.

The reason is not obscure.

Posted by: Tyro | May 31, 2011 9:07 AM

I couldn't tell whether Loftus was saying that PZ was wrong for not taking theology more seriously (which seems silly) or that PZ was wrong for not citing him more often (which also seems silly but also egotistical and insecure).

I never swore, got upset or harassing yet Loftus attacked me for not being satisfied with anything, with hating on him because he accepted the historical Jesus, then banned me and finally would complain about me ("thank you, it's so nice to see someone that isn't mean like Tyro") when I couldn't respond.

He's generally a nice, smart guy but something about this issue has him super riled up. I think he was looking for some respectful link love but now that he's got it, I fear he'll actually be even more upset.

So, you know, head over there and comment but be ready for a banning if you challenge him on anything :-)

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | May 31, 2011 9:09 AM

Isn't he just actually whinging that PZ, with his Courtier's Reply, makes him and his ilk superfluous to requirements and he's just afraid that not only us atheists notice but so may the hoi polloi and ask what good is he for. In other words, it's a STFU you mean old atheists or theologians might end up redundant.

Posted by: Shriketastic | May 31, 2011 9:12 AM

The reason is not obscure.

No, you're right, ethnocentrism and latent racism do explain it quite neatly.

Posted by: jmcnary | May 31, 2011 9:17 AM

Isn't this whole thing just one big Meta-Courier's Reply?

"You can't invoke the Courier's Reply until you *fully* understand the Onlooker's Gasp, the Worthy Rejoinder, et cetera, as argued by Biblical Scholars more learned in the ways of God -- whoops, I mean atheism -- than yourself."

Posted by: jmcnary | May 31, 2011 9:19 AM

Isn't this whole thing just one big Meta-Courier's Reply?

"You can't invoke the Courier's Reply until you *fully* understand the Onlooker's Gasp, the Worthy Rejoinder, et cetera, as argued by Biblical Scholars more learned in the ways of God -- whoops, I mean atheism -- than yourself."

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 9:23 AM

No, you're right, ethnocentrism and latent racism do explain it quite neatly.

Pushing back against the hegemon in one's own area is not simply ethnocentric or racist.

If Christianity deserves special refutations, then so does Judaism, and Islam, and the various Buddhist schools, and Zoroastrinism, and Shinto, and....

Right, but Loftus is trying to use what experience he has to work on the problems he can most readily address.

We can reasonably expect that the special refutations of those other religions will come from people with more exposure to those religions.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2011 9:27 AM

*shrug*

as far as I can tell, this all boils down to: "knowledge of theology is unnecessary to refute religion because the basic premises are wrong; however, since religion is fractal wrongness, it can just as easily be refuted at any other level."

I don't mind. Especially since watching Owlmirror and CJO go at it is deeply interesting and entertaining.

Posted by: spaninquis | May 31, 2011 9:31 AM

@3

So what Loftus is saying is "Indeed, when you haven't shown Jesus existed, it's silly to talk about the color of his socks .. BUT .. let me handle this, because I, as an expert, can show that what they say about the color of his socks is wrong, REGARDLESS of Jesus's existence"?

Actually, adding what Hairhead said in @2, Loftus would go a little further.

"Indeed, when you haven't shown Jesus existed, it's silly to talk about the color of his socks .. BUT .. let me handle this, because I, as an expert, can show that what they say about the color of his socks is wrong, REGARDLESS of Jesus' existence. As you know there were no socks in that time period so ipso facto, no Jesus either. Voila'"

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 9:37 AM

Are people reading Loftus's post? See this?

Trust me, I'm very thankful for the brilliance of PZ Myers

Does every criticism of PZ have to imply jealousy?

"You can't invoke the Courier's Reply until you *fully* understand the Onlooker's Gasp,

That's not at all what he's getting at. If the Courtier's reply is sufficient for your own rejection of Christianity, then that's that. His point is that if you want to convince Christians to abandon Christianity, they need Bible scholars, because Christians are already convinced they see the god-king's bathrobe and fancy socks.

The Courtier's reply is great as a response to "you need to understand these religions in order to reject them". Loftus agrees:

First off, I do not expect anyone to understand any particular theology in order to reject it. We all do this easily. I doubt very much anyone understands all of the religions they reject. I don't. No one does. We reject them all for the same reasons, because they have not met their own burden of proof. So I agree very much that neither PZ Myers nor Richard Dawkins needs to fully understand the various forms of Christianity in order to reject them all.

He was complaining that he wasn't sure if PZ recognized the importance of Bible scholars in debunking the beliefs of people who do understand particular theologies.

PZ clarifies that he does; case closed. (Loftus might in the future say "plz mention them more often kthx" but this is not an unreasonable request.)

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2011 9:44 AM

He literally says "We can easily reject Hinduism, for example, but CHRISTIANITY, nooooo that needs a SPECIAL answer, it's just so complex!"

You can fault him for ignoring the places where other religions are dominant, but not for elevating Christianity above other religions in general

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2011 9:47 AM

or to put it differently: Loftus agrees that the Courier's Reply is sufficient reason to reject/abandon religions, but that it's often not a sufficient cause of rejecting/abandoning them.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | May 31, 2011 9:51 AM

... as far as I can tell, this all boils down to: "knowledge of theology is unnecessary to refute religion because the basic premises are wrong; however, since religion is fractal wrongness, it can just as easily be refuted at any other level."

I'd call this very succinctly put.

I think it's also a bit about taste. And I think I absolutely do relate a bit with those who'll let them run on the line a bit, just for the sport...

Sure, it's almost a guilty pleasure--not so much like shooting fish in a barrel as dropping a hundred hooks into the barrel and amusing yourself watchin' the fish trying to sneak around 'em--and kinda gratuitious, really, since you also always know even if, by some miracle (and as if) they do keep their noses clean logically after you give them their cracked premise for argument's sake, you can always remind them later that, given this, they were just swimming in said closed barrel all along...

But I do get a good giggle now and then all the same out of watching folk who do just that-- give 'em their premise just for fun, then follow the theologicians thru' their contortions, just to catch the sleight of hand. Or even just to observe what monumental 'n elaborate castles they'll build out of as much air you let them expend.

And I'd add it's only fair, really, making that sport of it, now and then. As so much of their whole schtick is about convenient and endless forgetfulness. It's always, like, oh, we just totally forgot to deal with this mere triviality of demonstrating our premises, and/or totally forgot you've reminded of this like sixty times in the last month, and now we're gonna go plunging ahead as tho' we did anyway...

Well, see, it just gets boring constantly reminding them. To the point that, seriously, you get to wondering if that's part of their strategy, really... Like that's the plan: mebbe everyone will just forget we haven't, if we tire 'em out with enough bafflegab.

But anyway, hey, like I said: it makes it only fair to find your fun elsewhere, too. So if you can catch 'em playing fast and loose later in the argument, too, just for the variety, hey, why not.

Posted by: Easterngal | May 31, 2011 9:52 AM

He literally says "We can easily reject Hinduism, for example, but CHRISTIANITY, nooooo that needs a SPECIAL answer, it's just so complex!"

The writer specifically says that "But given the power and influence of Christianity in particular", and that's a valid enough reason. And in terms of influence and power, Christianity IS special, simply because it has attached itself very firmly to the US (and still somewhat to the Europe), which is an influential and powerful country. Trying to deny that is just silly.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2011 9:58 AM

@Jadehawk - you could be right but then why phrase this as either a critique of the Courtier's Reply or of the Gnus?

Posted by: sam.mddltn | May 31, 2011 10:00 AM

Sheesh, I'm surprised at my fellow commenters; the point he's trying to make isn't that complex.

Loftus isn't saying that the Courtiers Reply isn't sufficient grounds to reject a religion you know nothing about - he agrees that it is. What he's saying that is that it isn't going to convince someone who ALREADY buys into a religion that it's fake - they think they can see the emperor's clothes, after all. If you're trying to persuade a Christian that Christianity is wrong, it would benefit you to know something about Christianity.

Now, you can agree or disagree with that argument, but try to understand what he's actually saying before you dismiss it.

Posted by: spurll | May 31, 2011 10:01 AM

I'd just like to note that the Bible scholars listed above don't "layer on more crud"; they chip away at it bit by bit! Ehrman and Price in particular are excellent! And I do think that it's excellent that, as PZ said, they're "taking a different angle". Many approaches, right? :)

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | May 31, 2011 10:04 AM

If you're trying to persuade a Christian that Christianity is wrong, it would benefit you to know something about Christianity.

When I meet a Christian who actually knows much of anything about Christianity, I'll let you know. They're mighty thin on the ground.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 10:05 AM

Except, Easterngal, that that power derives from its large number of adherents, almost none of whom know or care anything about theology. A "sophisticated" grasp of Christian bullshit is of no use at all for reaching those people.

There's something to this, but starting a debate with the unsophisticated sometimes makes them throw a link to some sophisticated theology at you. It's nice to have a link to a specific refutation of that to throw back at them.

Posted by: Mus | May 31, 2011 10:08 AM

Theology it`s something full of nothing.
How can someonetake that thing (theology) seriously, is beyond my comprehension.

To me, it`s much better dismissing theology has something that is completly void of logic and tangible proofs and theories, and it`s only good to laugh about the "wisdom" and "arguments" of the people that defend theology has a serious area of human knowledge.

Posted by: Easterngal | May 31, 2011 10:12 AM

@Steve LaBonne

Well, yes, it could be true, but that's entirely another argument - whether engaging in theology is effective enough in changing minds.

But I really disagree with the implication that by saying "Christianity is especially powerful and hence needs special attention to taken care of it" the writer is "elevating" Christianity.

That's not elevating Christianity in any way other than acknowledging its powerful influence.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkf74XVc1iIGtov16d5vIO283cuaGhiHSw | May 31, 2011 10:19 AM

RE: Comment #20. This fellow might be a troll or J. P. Holding,
who has no standing in the scholarly community. I have already
answered some of his obtuse objections to The End of Biblical Studies here: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/01/dr-hector-avalos-responds-to-jp.html

Posted by: ReaganLimbaughfan | May 31, 2011 10:21 AM

I will say I reject the courtier's reply.
To summarize the courtier's reply
"One can be justified in rejecting a proposition ,even if one does not need to fully understand the semantic content of said proposition"

The only case I would say this could be true is if one already believes a proposition that entails the negation.

Example Proposition: "A triune God exists"
I will say Dawkins does not need to understand the trinity in order to reject said proposition.
This is because Dawkins has a prior belief in naturalism. Naturalism entails that unembodied minds such as God do not exist.
Example "string theory is true"
If say, I believe in some other theory like loop quantum gravity and this theory precludes string theory, then I think I would be justified.
Proposition: Hanuman is god and should be worshipped
LEt's say I believed in another diety (like YHWH or Allah) was the only deity worthy of worship , then I would be justied in rejecting this

However there is a difference in being convincing to someone who holds ssaid proposition.
Would any naturalist here be convinced naturalism was wrong when they read a book by an apologist who did not understand naturalism or atheism and continually misrepresented the beliefs of naturalists?
Would any Hindu be convinced by a book which purposed to disprove Hinduism but showed basic ignorance of Hindu doctrines like reincarnation?
Similarly I think when Christians accuse Dawkins of being ignorant of Christian theology and misrepresenting Christian beliefs they are saying why the book is not convincing to them.
(I look forward to feedback on this post. I am open to changing my position. This si just how it seems to me.)

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | May 31, 2011 10:29 AM

reagan.limbaugh, we just start from the point of where is the evidence for god. Until then, why argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin if you haven't yet shown that angels exist. That is the point of the courtier's reply.

Posted by: ReaganLimbaughfan | May 31, 2011 10:30 AM

I have doubts about anyone who purports to be an expert or scholar but makes basic blunders in statistics like those in Carrier's paper.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 31, 2011 10:33 AM

I've yet to see evidence for the existence of a Rush Limbaugh fan who has enough mental competence honestly evaluate his own belief system, which is necessary prerequisite to opening it up to change based on evidence.

Posted by: Tyro | May 31, 2011 10:43 AM

well no, that quote says that for PZ, personally, the Courtier's Reply is sufficient. But he also says:

What most people have locked into their brains is a pattern of ritual and dogma and pseudohistory so intricate that it obscures the central assumption, and to chip through that we need Biblical scholars who grapple with the details.

So what? PZ has always argued for a multiplicity of voices, doesn't mean he agrees with everything they say nor with their approach. And I hardly need say but saying a handful of Bible scholars do good critical work is hardly the basis for a critique of the Courtier's Reply.

The CR is valid, period. If some people like Loftus want to set it aside and critique the embroidery then more power to them. In fact, a couple years ago Loftus was regularly writing some insightful, powerful articles but this was always his choice and it may turn out to be a quixotic one. What do you suppose he's looking for from PZ and those who would use the CR?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 31, 2011 10:45 AM

I think ReaganLimbaughFan has already pre-announced that he's a flaming idiot with his 'nym.

And if you still had any questions, just click on his link.

Posted by: John W. Loftus | May 31, 2011 10:52 AM

Thanks PZ and others for your comments.

A couple days ago I had written more on this topic:

http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2011/05/does-emperor-have-clothes-on-or-not.html

I appreciate comment #37 and some others, who said:

Loftus isn't saying that the Courtiers Reply isn't sufficient grounds to reject a religion you know nothing about - he agrees that it is. What he's saying that is that it isn't going to convince someone who ALREADY buys into a religion that it's fake - they think they can see the emperor's clothes, after all. If you're trying to persuade a Christian that Christianity is wrong, it would benefit you to know something about Christianity.

Yes, this is a strategic move.

I also argue we need all approaches, not just one.

Posted by: clausentum | May 31, 2011 10:54 AM

Jesus with socks and sandals? Anyone with dress sense like that ought to be crucified.

Posted by: Kristjan Wager | May 31, 2011 10:55 AM

And the threat of Hinduism and Buddhism are somewhat less than others because they are ecumenical and not evangelical.

You'd think that the fact that Hinduism is the predominant religion in one of the countries involved in the border conflict considered most likely to escalate into a nuclear war, would make people begin to take notice of it.

The conflict between Pakistan and India is to a large degree flamed by religious motivations, so I would consider Hinduism a very large potential threat indeed.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 10:56 AM

So what? PZ has always argued for a multiplicity of voices, doesn't mean he agrees with everything they say nor with their approach.

So what what? What is your point?

And I hardly need say but saying a handful of Bible scholars do good critical work is hardly the basis for a critique of the Courtier's Reply.

It's a critique of thinking that the Courtier's Reply will always be effective.

Not a critique of the Courtier's Reply being sufficient for those who already use it to personally reject any religion they come across.

The CR is valid, period.

And Loftus agrees. So what is your point, Tyro?

What do you suppose he's looking for from PZ and those who would use the CR?

He's pretty clear about what he's looking for:

may I humbly suggest they recommend the work of Biblical scholars like Robert Price, Hector Avalos, Bart Ehrman and others like them, as well as philosophers like John Shook, John Beversluis, Richard Carrier, Keith Parsons, Matt McCormick and others like them.

Loftus thinks PZ's not recommending them often enough.

Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | May 31, 2011 11:02 AM

@SGBM, are you being deliberately obtuse or just once again generally loking for an argument with someone new this time. As I thought that my meaning would be obvious, i.e. Gnus are critcised for telling the accommodationists to shut up when it is the other way round and also that Gnus are shrill and strident when we not.

As to the other point, it was more a generalisation based on a number of recent events, not so much Loftus per se, so no, no paranoia on my part. You do live up to the first part of your name don't you.

Posted by: Rorschach | May 31, 2011 11:04 AM

I agree with those who argue that it can be a valuable tool to have some knowledge of the emperors fashion style and garment design, to argue with those who are indeed already concerned with, and invested in, these matters.
Especially for Islam, first it seems to stun most Muslims I've ever talked with that a westerner should have more than a fleeting acquaintance with their religion, and some I spoke to were quite disturbed by my account of how their holy book actually came into existence, because they hadn't known this.
Of course, in the end what it boils down to, can you reason anyone out of a mindset they didn't arrive at by ways of reasoning ?

Posted by: Tyro | May 31, 2011 11:06 AM

Loftus thinks PZ's not recommending them often enough.

I think you're right.

But if Loftus says that he supports multiple approaches, I think it's inconsistent (not to mention vain, insecure, silly, etc) for him to then complain that PZ isn't responding to religious claims the way he (Loftus) would like. It's doubly silly for him to phrase this as being "what's wrong with the Courtier's Reply" as he did in the title of his first post.

I guess if I had a point, that's it. Maybe took me a while to get around to it :-)

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2011 11:07 AM

John, whatever. Not all criticisms are an act of persecution, even if they're based on a misunderstanding. If Loftus ignores what he's been told here, then you can complain.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 31, 2011 11:11 AM

It would have to have premises that are plausibly true , or at least more plausibly true than their negation.

And have you applied this to the resurrection?

Posted by: John W. Loftus | May 31, 2011 11:15 AM

Looks like Tyro wants to bring out our personal disputes here. Okay. We have a history.

Posted by: hyperdeath | May 31, 2011 11:25 AM

To summarize the courtier's reply "One can be justified in rejecting a proposition ,even if one does not need to fully understand the semantic content of said proposition"

A complete and utter strawman. A proper formulation would be:
"One can be justified in rejecting a proposition, even if one is unaware of extensions based upon the proposition, which by themselves are insufficient to demonstrate the proposition's validity"

For example, if someone claims to have disproved evolution through the classic example of finding fossil rabbits in the pre-Cambrian, then it would be ludicrous to state:

"I have considered Mr Smiths claims of fossil rabbits with exasperation at his lack of serious scholarship. He has apparently not familiar with Haldane's analysis of population genetics, nor has he given a moment's consideration to Dawkin's view of the extended phenotype."

Instead, any argument should be based on the rabbits themselves, rather than irrelevant edifices which are built upon the very matter being debated.

Posted by: Bruce Gorton | May 31, 2011 11:27 AM

I take the courtier's reply slightly differently.

I noticed a long time ago when you get the courtier's reply - it is very rarely by people who go into what a given theologian or philosopher said.

You just get a bibliography.

Then I tried reading a bit of that bibliography and I figured out why - the courtiers have not read the books they say I must read, or they just figured it would be a good stalling tactic to send me after those books rather than present the blatantly stupid, moronic bullshit contained in them for me to dismantle then and there.

Either way its about wasting my time. So if the courtiers want me to take their criticism seriously, they should present the ideas they claim I'm not familiar with rather than going through a bibliography of authoritive sounding names.

Posted by: frog, Inc. | May 31, 2011 11:31 AM

PZ: No, no, no. Loftus is making the same misinterpretation I've heard from creationists and theologians: that the Courtier's Reply is a call for ignorance and an excuse for not trying to understand religion.

No, no, no. PZ is making the same misinterpretations I've heard from theologians and fundamentalists -- that a tactical call for understanding the underlying logic is a strategic demand for accommodation.

Loftus is not misinterpreting you -- you are misinterpreting Loftus, who is simply arguing that a better tactical approach in changing the religious landscape involves understanding the intricacies of the local religious landscape. It's a "helpful suggestion" -- that even if in fact you are justified in calling a "Courtier's Reply", in fact it doesn't help to actually change the world, if that's your goal.

But continue on with your self-affirmation group, your "12 steps for ex-Christians".

Posted by: --E | May 31, 2011 11:33 AM

I am deeply confused by some of these comments.

Isn't the Courtier's Reply what the religious person says? The atheist only points out that the religionist's claim is a Courtier's Reply; the atheist doesn't make the reply.

Onlooker: Hey, the king's naked.
Courtier: What are you talking about? Look at the gold braid on his jacket!

is equivalent to

Atheist: Hey, there is no god.
Religionist: What are you talking about? Haven't you read all these very thoughtful books about him?

Which leads naturally to the Dead Parrot sketch:

Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I'm looking at one right now.

Pet Shop Owner: No, no, he's not dead ... Remarkable bird ... Beautiful plumage!

Mr. Praline: The plumage don't enter into it. It's stone dead.

----------

In addition, even if we say, "All right, let's accept their premise that there is a god, and use their own scholars to demonstrate their inconsistencies," I fail to see how this will accomplish anything.

Several million people failed to be raptured on May 21st. How many of them subsequently dug in, doubled-down, and clung even tighter to their nonsensical beliefs?

Demonstration even on their own terms that they are wrong-wrong-wrongity-wrong does not penetrate skulls shielded by the finest hand-wrought helmets religion can buy.

Your best approach remains intellectual honesty.

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 31, 2011 11:36 AM

ReaganLimbaughfan, why are you linking to such an outdated and ugly site? And the featured link at the bottom, Rush For President, is dead.

If this is for real, it does show just how out of touch you are. Limbaugh in any kind of public office would be a complete failure. His hothouse conservatism would run into the reality of actually working with different ideas and methods. Limbaugh would easily become one of the worst elected officials ever.

Did you ever think that there is a reason why Limbaugh has never tried to hold office? He cannot even handle a dissenting voice in an uncontrolled environment.

An ally of the Founding Fathers? Yeah, because they all had the same philosophy of governing.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | May 31, 2011 11:39 AM

I noticed a long time ago when you get the courtier's reply - it is very rarely by people who go into what a given theologian or philosopher said... You just get a bibliography.

Yeah, that, too.

There are a number of possibilities, I figure, here. Among them:

1) They do know the argument, and know well enough it's actually a spot of nonsense and thus fear you'd almost certainly thrash it to bits in a second, so they're not going to be so foolish as to hand it over to its imminent destruction so immediately, and

2) They don't even really know the argument, but hey, the names sounded good.

I figure either is actually about as likely. Most theological arguments, I've often suspected, aren't really meant to convince anyone so much as offer a post hoc rationalization, so 1) is plausible; they may well have been conscious enough of this fact when they heard it themselves, and so know or at least suspect it's not going to cut any mustard with anyone actually paying attention to its structure. And 2) is pretty coherent with the general attitude of acceptance of authority religions do tend to encourage.

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2011 11:39 AM

The thing is, there are already plenty of ex-Christian atheists who know pretty much everything there is to know about the Bible, who can address Christians on “their own turf,” so to speak, debating fine points of leprechaunism with leprechaun believers.

True. The scholarly consensus of xian scholars for the last few centuries is that the bible is either mostly or all fiction.

You can easily see the bones of it and how it evolved over time.

How they deal with it is interesting. Some become agnostics or atheists. Many become pantheists or Deists of one sort or another. I suppose a lot of them just ignore that knowledge and pretend it never existed, the cognitive dissonance approach.

As a kludgy old book with nothing much interesting to say to modern humans, the bible isn't worth reading. As an ancient and important document of our ancient cultural roots, it is as well as the magic book of those who seek to destroy our civilization. There are tons of good books out there by many xian scholars explaining what it is about and why, Ehrman, Mack, Spong, Wells, Borg, Harpur, Avalos, Price, and too many others to name.

Posted by: dinkum | May 31, 2011 11:41 AM

So, how is having encyclopedic knowledge of Christian theology helpful in changing the local religious landscape when the local religious landscape is comprised primarily of people whose theological study peaked with the Moses N' Pals coloring books in Sunday school?

Posted by: Joe Bloe | May 31, 2011 11:43 AM

I don't argue with Christians any more. If they mention religion, I ask them to first describe their god and then prove that it exists.

So far not one theist has managed to get past the description stage. In almost every case, they eventually declare that god is "ineffable" and/or "beyond the comprehension of mere humans".

In other words, they don't know what they are talking about !

Posted by: azumahazuki | May 31, 2011 11:48 AM

If for no other reason than "Know thy enemy" I think we need as much bible scholarship as we can get. Also logic, philosophy, anthropology, comparative religion, a few little bits of the old languages...basically the stuff I put myself through years of teeth-grinding study :)

It looks very, very bad when we can't face up to these morons on the debate circuit. More knowledge is always better than less, all things considered. If we want to defeat these people we need to do it on their home turf, in front of their partisans, because this is a large-scale battle for hearts and minds and most of said hearts and minds do not take the scientific approach we do.

It's about staying on message. The average Missouri believer does not know or care about M-theory, but if you can dig up the history and show that events X Y and Z did not and could not happen, THAT will have an effect. Know thy enemt, and know thy audience!

Posted by: Abelard | May 31, 2011 11:50 AM

It is entirely possible that, at least for some set of people who care deeply about such things, that having a theologian explain in depth why Random Doctrine X is unsupported by the Bible might be a more convincing way of getting them to question their faith than just showing that Random Doctrine X is factually wrong.

When believers question doctrine this is not the same as questioning faith. In the judeo-christian hermeneutical tradition it is the theologian's job to question religious doctrine in order to discover a faith more true. Of course, only the experts are allowed such license, those who have studied biblical history etc. These experts will never question the priors on which their beliefs are based, namely the existence of god, gods, angels, fairies, moon-wookies, or whatever, so their arguments or analyses will always fall short of questioning faith, be it christian or wookie. They will never connect the dots for their listeners since questioning faith would undermine their entire raison d'etre.

Loftus' syllogism goes something like this: any subject that mentions the christian god can be found to be in the domain of expert christian theologians, since atheists reject the christian god, therefore atheism can be found to be in the domain of expert christian theologians

While I think Loftus may be able to say something about why some people reject christianity, the rejection of christian theology does not define atheism, nor did all atheists find atheism through christianity. I would like to hear a rationale why christian theologians should be listened to above all other theological thinkers regarding atheism, and not simply because christianity is "powerful" or "mighty" or whatever superlative christians want to append to their ridiculous beliefs.

Posted by: azumahazuki | May 31, 2011 11:56 AM

And speaking of scholarship:

John, if you can see this, what do you think of Acharya S.? I have a very bad feeling she's the Kersey Graves of our day, but if what she's saying is true...wow.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkf74XVc1iIGtov16d5vIO283cuaGhiHSw | May 31, 2011 11:56 AM

I must add that John Loftus does an excellent job of gathering some of the best scholarship in his anthologies (e.g., The Christian Delusion) and on his blog.

Hector Avalos

Posted by: Janine, The Little Top Of Venom, OM | May 31, 2011 12:01 PM

Hector Avalos is a Googlemess! I hate this! Yet an other plea for the techies to fix this sign in problem.

Posted by: Menyambal: Making sambal (it isn't dragon magic). | May 31, 2011 12:04 PM

This is the first time I have heard of the term "Courtier's Reply". Looking up the various links I find it to be the name of a logical fallacy so named by The Professor. But on this thread the term has taken on a reciprocal meaning. The term is applied to the argument that the logical fallacy is being used to criticize.

I had just realized that I had done that myself. I said, "The Courtier's Reply" when what I meant was "the rational response to the Courtier's fallacious Reply".

The name now means "The pointing out of the fallacy of the Courtier's Reply".

Posted by: Rorschach | May 31, 2011 12:07 PM

Avalos praising Lotfus' blog, huh.
Who's next, Bart Ehrman ?

Posted by: John W. Loftus | May 31, 2011 12:14 PM

Tyro, I have several trolls who visit my blog who think of me as a very serious threat to their faith. They are abusive. I ban them. They come back using different IP addresses. This process repeats itself again and again and again. Their goal is to make people like you think I ban a lot of people when its only a few of them doing this. I can only guess who they are. Maybe it makes me trigger happy. If that's another goal of theirs I guess they have succeeded.

You are a different case. Please stop the accusations. You don't have a clue about the pressures I am under every single day. You added to them. If anyone thinks I ban people who disagree with me then that's pure ignorance. Thanks for helping spread the lie. For the record you were banned for the lack of respect. People can see the tail end of it for themselves by following the links here, so no need writing anything more about it.

Posted by: Tyro | May 31, 2011 12:21 PM

It sounds like there are two different Courtier's Replies.

There's the one where someone (a Christian or an accomodationist atheist) uses some mouldy old tome to get atheists to shut up. As just one of many horrible examples, Jacques Berlinerblau seriously describes the first step people should take to understand atheistic arguments:

"Step one: Read a few major scholarly studies of atheism like Professor Alan Kors’ Atheism in France, 1650-1729: Volume 1: The Orthodox Sources of Disbelief, or Michael Buckley’s At the Origins of Modern Atheism, or the somewhat graying study of Lucien Febvre, The Problem of Unbelief in the Sixteenth Century: The Religion of Rabelais."

And that's just to understand atheism! Notice there's no hint at whether this will help us decide whether there's a god or not. Does anyone seriously believe that treating this seriously and writing a long post on any of these books would be any more effective than using the CR to point out how absurd th

I think Loftus is referring to something else when he talks about the Courtier's Reply. It sounds like he's saying that when we're presented with actual arguments for God, we should take them seriously, on their own merits. But isn't that exactly what Dawkins did in TGD?

So the big question which Loftus should be answering but hasn't is: when have the Gnus used the CR but it would have been better to engage in a theological argument?

Posted by: llewelly | May 31, 2011 12:30 PM

Some time after Nick brought up Loftus' article on facebook, I posted my thoughts on it:

(0) Loftus is right to point out that scholarly critique of Christianity can change minds, but there are also many people who will refuse to listen to it. It's a fine thing to recommend it as one tactic among many, but it can't be a primary tactic, because it affects only the minority that have the interest and the ability to follow a scholarly critique.

(1) Loftus and the other scholars he points are not the target of the Courtier's reply, for two reasons: (a) They are not theologians in the traditional sense. They do not debate whether or not people in homosexual relationships can make spiritual progress, whether or not women can be priests, whether God diddled in human evolution, and so forth. They study what historical and modern Christians wrote about their beliefs, and what historical evidence is available for those beliefs, and what historical evidence there is for the development of Christian belief systems, and meta issues of that character. They differ from traditional theologians in the same way that the scientists who showed "alien abduction" experiences to be largely a product of sleep paralysis differ from ufologists who believe actual abductions are taking place. It's like the difference between Matthew Dentith, who studies conspiracy theories, how they spread, and the people who believe them, and the producers of _Loose Change_, who propagate conspiracy theories. (b) Loftus is pushing the claim that scholarly critics of the bible do not get the attention they deserve, and that widespread publicity of their critiques could do much for atheism, but he is not claiming that biblical criticism is the only valid criticism of Christianity (but there are scholarly critics of the bible who *do* claim that; Robert J. Miller expressed that view in an interview with Robert M. Price on POI).

(2) Contrary to Loftus' claim, PZ Myers has in fact recommended the work of Hector Avalos (several times), and has at least pointed his readers at an interview with Loftus and another with Bart Ehrman.

I'm reposting it here because it seems to me many in this thread are failing to understand point (1), there is a distinction between theology, and the study of the history of theology, and the archaeological contexts of the texts which describe said theology. The first is an imaginary discipline; a kind of fan fiction, but not recognized as such. The second is a study of human behavior, and just as valid as studying the behavior of Star Trek geeks, or the history of Science Fiction. In a certain sense, Avalos and others like him do for the bible what Joe Nickell has done for numerous ghost stories and monster legends.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | May 31, 2011 12:33 PM

azumahazuki:

In my experience they all reduce down to a small kernel of presuppositionalism anyway if you push them far enough...

I believe that is the heart of the Myers' Response to the Courtier's Reply (MRCR). The MRCR is a shortcut to the process and gets right at the heart of the presuppositionalism.

As one who has argued with religious folks, it's dangerous to let them define the nature of the debate. The instant you give ground to fantasy, the discussion becomes far more malleable than is good for a discussion. All the religious study in the world won't help when the theist is playing one-sided Calvinball. They get to change the rules, but we don't, being all reality-based and shit.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2011 12:36 PM

As Bruce Gorton points out, it is inevitably a waste of my time, and I don't appreciate it when people make me waste my time. Lacking an afterlife, time is all I have.

No one says you're supposed to become knowledgeable in their BS.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2011 12:40 PM

It sounds like he's saying that when we're presented with actual arguments for God, we should take them seriously, on their own merits.

no, no one is saying you or any otehr atheist is supposed to take the argument for god seriously. only that Christians aren't going to suddenly drop their religion if you point out their premises are wrong. this was Loftus' misunderstanding of what the CR applies to, since in the end, PZ and him actually agree.

Posted by: dinkum | May 31, 2011 12:41 PM

As one who has argued with religious folks, it's dangerous to let them define the nature of the debate. The instant you give ground to fantasy, the discussion becomes far more malleable than is good for a discussion. All the religious study in the world won't help when the theist is playing one-sided Calvinball. They get to change the rules, but we don't, being all reality-based and shit.

This, a thousand times, this.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | May 31, 2011 12:51 PM

basically, this is all about a misunderstanding about which direction the Courtier's Reply works in.

The actual meaning of this term is a reply made by a Christian, claiming that an atheist must refute higher theology in order to be allowed/able to reject religion. This of course is complete and utter crap. And it's not something Loftus disagrees with.

Loftus seems to have, however, also assumed that the CR-situation also applies to convincing Christians to reject religion: he seemed to think that PZ etc. think that merely pointing out the faulty premises would and should be enough to convince Christians. This is not the case. PZ has corrected this impression by admitting that sometimes deconstructing the bible step by step is necessary.

So, unless I see Loftus pretend this answer never happened, or claim accommodationist-style that attacking the premises is always ineffective and we should always focus on the details, I have no beef with him on this conversation.

Posted by: mikmik | May 31, 2011 1:11 PM

You have to understand critical thinking, logic, basic 'dime store' psychology, human nature, common sense (etc.) to debunk religion just fine. Mostly, just a tad of common sense will suffice.
I am immersed in a fundamentalist society, for various reasons, and I get taught everything about the Christian way, the attitudes, purpose, thought processes, how to pray, the bible, blah blah etc and more!
I understand why these fuckers are immune to reason and there are two startling experiences I've had so far.
One is hearing a guy, high up in the church(they just love everyone to give testimonials) say that even if there was absolute proof that god didn't exist, he would still believe. Another friend I respect a lot said the same thing way back, a very smart and mature woman, no less.
The other surprising dynamic at work here is that it's taught and understood that nothing should be believed without critical evaluation!!!!
But, they also provide the critical exploration of
whatever, like Jesus resurrection, complete with refutations of common arguements us anti-christs use.
So: they think they do indeed think they evaluate the bible 'critically' and they also think reason and facts don't matter anyways FFS!!!
The lessons are filled with straw men ad infinitum, what the 'experts' say is grossly simplified and misrepresented - you've heard it all.
This shit can be refuted on so many levels, in so many ways, it is ridiculous. I come up with new rebukes every time I read the bible. There are so many inconsistencies and outright impossibilities it is not even fucking funny to me anymore.
Even they point out shit sometimes in understanding that it's bunk in places, yet still turn around and say the bible is the inerrent word of God, God fucking damn it!
Who cares about understanding and expert analysis, it doesn't fucking matter, it doesn't fucking matter.
It is a subculture, there are all the attendant peer and societal pressure and indoctrination in every subtle to explicit manner.
It doesn't fucking matter.
Any approach using reason and fact is going to fail.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 31, 2011 1:19 PM

The Courtier's Reply is most useful in illustrating to atheists how easily they may be distracted in conversation with believers. It's easy to project the satirical Courtier onto many apologists and serves as a reminder that what they appear to be saying may not have any bearing on the topic which we, as atheists, are actually interested in pursuing.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 1:32 PM

mikmik, I'm not sure you're wrong, but I'd like to ask you something.

Any approach using reason and fact is going to fail.

What do you think accounts for the modern reduction in religious belief in Europe?

Posted by: grung0r | May 31, 2011 1:43 PM

@136

What signaled to me was the mention of Avalos and Ehrman, who I associate with The End of Biblical Studies and Misquoting Jesus, not contra theology

He also mentioned John Shook, who wrote this little gem at Huffpo, who's location alone should tell you all you need to know, but if not, a few choice quotes:

Christian theology has come a long way since St. Thomas Aquinas. Under stress from modern science and Enlightenment philosophy, it has explored cosmological, ethical, emotional, and existential dimensions of religious life. Many kinds of theology have emerged, replacing a handful of traditional arguments for God with robust methods of defending religious viewpoints.

If atheists are going to produce a rational worldview capable of replacing religion, they must take religion and theology more seriously.

Atheists are getting a reputation for being a bunch of know-nothings. They know nothing of God, and not much more about religion, and they seem proud of their ignorance.

Loftus thinks that theology is a real field of study that can produce real results. His citing of John Shook, plus his behavior in defending this article at his site is pretty damn good evidence of this fact.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 31, 2011 1:45 PM

theologian/biblical scholar was very smart and said x and x refutes Dawkins' argument

Posted by: Dr. Strabismus (WGP) of Utrecht | May 31, 2011 1:51 PM

140 John Loftus: Magnificent troll flushing device! "In the name of Jesus..."

Brilliant!

Posted by: Tyro | May 31, 2011 1:58 PM

I just linked to this discussion from my blog. Inevitably the Christian trolls I spoke of earlier might chime in with what Tyro said, because they can. If they do you will know them.

Uh oh, if you call me out one more time by name, I'll leap out from your monitor and spray holy water on you, rawr!

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2011 2:20 PM

What arguments led you to reject faith?

1. Arguments from people who dismissed it

2. Arguments from people who understood it

Not exactly a complete list of why people deconvert. There are many more reasons than that.

3. Fundie Xians. Xians have been making atheists since 33 CE. A religion that produces evil, lying, violent morons has to look suspiciously Fake.

4. The bible. What a kludgy, gruesome old book.

I will say that reading the Gnu atheists like Dawkins, Myers, and Hitchens got me started. Along with the xian scholars like Avalos (who rocks bigtime!!!), Ehrman, and the new and expanding pantheon of xian biblical scholars.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | May 31, 2011 2:25 PM

@--E:

Why do you need another parrot? This one is perfectly fine, beautiful plumage.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 2:33 PM

If anyone has any double-blind studies demonstrating the relative effectiveness of various approaches to convincing religionists that their beliefs are false, please do present them.

I don't have exactly that, but I think this one contains a hint at what may help:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2011/05/richard_dawkins_asks_a_questio.php#comment-3901448

Posted by: irenedelse | May 31, 2011 2:42 PM

Here's what puzzles me in the part of John Loftus's text quoted above (even if we don't count against him the fact that here's yet another critic of P.Z who misspells his surname):

1) Loftus acknowledges that the piece entitled "The Courtier's Reply" is an answer to a common contention of theologians that atheists reject religion without knowing the sophisticated arguments devised by them, the theologians, for the existence of God.

2) Then, Loftus argues that if you intend to convince Christian to think critically about religion, you have to have some knowledge of what it is exactly Christians believe and what their theological rationalizations are. It's basic "know thine ennemy" stuff and it could make for a sound "multiple approches for different targets" strategy. Or if you want, people like P.Z. use a direct, straight to the jugular approach, while Loftus and similar thinkers favor side movements and mental judo, using a knowledge of Christian writings to rebut Christian theology. (It's often entertaining to play one school of Christian thought against another, because very often, whatever a theologian says about God has already been demolished by another theologian).

3) But then, Loftus makes the statement that Bible scholarship is useful for atheists and critical thinkers who want to debate with Christian. That, in itself, is true (and in addition, it's also useful if you want to debate with Jews and, very often, Muslims). But why, why the jump from theology, which is in the realm of metaphysics, to Bible scholarship, which includes the contributions of history, archaeology, philology, anthropology, and other sciences?

Sure, theologians describe themselves as Biblical scholars, but they are far from the only ones bearing that title, and it's confusing and counterproductive if we atheists and rational thinkers fall into the same intellectual trap.

Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu | May 31, 2011 3:09 PM

Homeopathic prayers?

Is there any other kind?

Posted by: CJO | May 31, 2011 3:19 PM

Oho, what's this then?

*Reads thread*

@#2 and others,
There certainly were socks in the first century. A cache of letters to and from legionaries stationed at the fort Vindolanda near Hadrian's Wall were found during a dig. Warm clothing was the most requested item by the soldiers from home, including wool socks. (They weren't big on the northern diet either.) Also from Roman Britain, parts of sandals have been found with wool threads still attached to the nails.

Not a big item in the Levant, of course, but still. Neglect not the glorious legacy of The Sock.

General observations:
Biblical Studies and Theology are hardly coterminous. In my experience, most modern theology is only tenuously based on particulars from the Bible. The first step appears to be to abstract a few general principles about the God character from a diverse array of texts and thus derive the axioms on which the theological maundering is based, and refer back to the Bible as little as possible in the course of making the argument. The main thing I've learned from my atheistic study of the Bible is how far removed from modern concerns most of the texts are, and so how irrelevant it all is unless one is interested in the history of what people believed and how it came to be in its current form. That's precisely why "sophisticated theology" has to immediately spin off into abstruse realms of ontological and metaphysical debate to keep up the appearance of relevance, and, conversely, why the Ken Hams of the world retreat ever further and more militantly into an opaque literalism.

Moreover, this loss of relevance was ongoing while the texts of the Bible were still being composed. The author of Genesis 1 had no use for the scruffy little gardener of Genesis 2; prophetic books like Isaiah and Jeremiah were updated multiple times in terms of subsequent events before they reached their final form; and in the NT Matthew used almost all of Mark while seemingly rejecting its core message, and neither author took much of anything from their predecessors, exemplified by the Pauline literature.

We (meaning atheists) need Bible scholars, if for no other reason than to dispute the very logic of the claim that there's any consistent message to be found there at all. I get a lot of value out of reading Biblical criticism by liberal Christian scholars, but even there there's the tendency to try and salvage the texts for believers. Even Ehrman, since becoming the poster child for skeptical scholarship, has toned it down and limited his focus to textual transmission in the early manuscripts, presumably in order to continue selling books, the bulk of his audience being believers.

Posted by: Richard C | May 31, 2011 3:59 PM

That's a very good explanation of the Courtier's Reply... that subtly and nuance is important, but only after the core assumptions have been demonstrated and no sooner. It's useless to prattle on about the subtle art of your hand-carved window trim when the foundation of the house is about to collapse, and it would be meaningless to lecture on the subtitles of Relativity and time dilation were Newton's Laws still unproven and the speed of light not actually shown to be constant.

Posted by: The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge | May 31, 2011 4:15 PM

Years ago in school I remember a Q & A with a guest lecturer (a prominent professor at a religion-affiliated university—I won't say which one, because as religion-affiliated universities go, it's not bad.)

The subject worked around to exobiology, and he used that tired old "science without a subject" canard. I said "This from a professor at a university with a theology department!" He was forced to grit his teeth and laugh along with everybody else.

Now, 40 years later, I'd probably be arrested.

Posted by: wanderinweeta | May 31, 2011 4:31 PM

azumahazuki # 110

I am entirely opposed to the idea that we need fewer scholars too. The more we can get the better, especially if they're like Loftus, Avalos, Ehrman, Price, Barker, and so forth.
No one knows how to break a system down like someone who used to be one of the high-ranking insiders.

Christians who study the Bible carefully and/or read theology are relatively rare. But they are not non-existent. And they may find these writers and other serious scholars useful and thought-provoking.

I know that reading Avalos, Ehrman, Price, Carrier, Spong, Finkelstein, etc., and following their web discussions was a key element in my rapid transition from liberal Christianity to full-blown atheism. (The Bible itself, without the aid of scholars, moved me from fundamentalism to liberal Christianity.)

"There is no God; it's obvious!" would not have convinced me until the scholars had convinced me of the tenuous hold the Bible has on anything resembling authority, or even basic history.

There's no need to keep only one arrow in our quiver.

Posted by: azumahazuki | May 31, 2011 4:36 PM

Good Lord, #160, Loftus an accomodationist? He's almost as rabid as PZ.

It bothers me that there are so many atheists who don't know and don't want to know these things. "Know thy enemy" should be reason enough to get to masters-degree-level knowledge of theology and bible studies if nothing else.

We need to be able to beat these whackaloons with their own weapons. It is not enough to insist that their core premises don't hold up; this is just the atheist version of presuppositionalist apologetics and I for one do NOT want the atheist equivalent of Cornelius van Til in my noosphere.

These people do not think like us, will not think like us, and are expressly forbidden to think like us. Their entire worldview is Bible-steeped. We need to know the material better than they do, AND know the outside references to it and how it fits in the real world. KNOW THY AUDIENCE.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 31, 2011 4:50 PM

Azumahazuki,
I don't think that is necessary. We need to know the problems inherent in specific religious arguments, but needing to have encyclopaedic access to the bible and it's faults is excessive. We should have access to our own philosophical underpinnings, and a basic understanding of how religion is fostered and supported. Beyond that, there are too many believers from too many faiths with too many reasons to allow us a comprehensive defensive armament. I am not saying to give up, but what you suggest is missing the people who don't believe because of, say, the bible, or those who believe in a different deity from Jesus.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 4:53 PM

Thread needs more communism.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 5:02 PM

It bothers me that there are so many atheists who don't know and don't want to know these things. "Know thy enemy" should be reason enough to get to masters-degree-level knowledge of theology and bible studies if nothing else.

I expect that having many people who are indifferent to theology and the Bible, treating the Bible as something not worth reading and not worth knowing any detail about, the way that many people treat Moby Dick, is strategically useful.

If kids grow up in a world where everyone cares about theology, how will they escape? Where will it end? If atheists were a majority and still treated theology seriously, there might be children of atheists who turn to Christianity just because it seems to be important.

We need to be able to beat these whackaloons with their own weapons. It is not enough to insist that their core premises don't hold up; this is just the atheist version of presuppositionalist apologetics and I for one do NOT want the atheist equivalent of Cornelius van Til in my noosphere.

Problem: you're probably currently rejecting Hinduism and Buddhism almost entirely by ignorance of even their core premises.

Posted by: A. Nuran | May 31, 2011 5:04 PM

Then there are people like Bart Ehrman. He started off at Fundie U. the Moody Bible College. He became such a good Bible scholar that he lost his faith in the whole sad mess. Now he's a non-Christian and one of the world's foremost authorities on the Bible.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 5:13 PM

I hope that people who are concerned with the defense of mainstream science against its attackers will not undermine their credibility by supporting pseudoscholarship regarding history. Mythicism falls into the latter category.

At that link I see a bunch of responses to books I haven't read and don't care about.

Problem is I've never seen convincing evidence for why I should assume Jesus was real in the first place.

Posted by: KG | May 31, 2011 5:19 PM

googlemess@170,

You don't help your case by linking to the block of that fuckwit McGrath. He would say that, wouldn't he? (As it happens, though no expert and not considering the matter particularly important, I am inclined to accept the view of the majority of scholars, including non-Christians, that a real individual is at the core of the Jesus mythology; but I've yet to see anything approaching a conclusive argument for that position.)

Posted by: raven | May 31, 2011 5:31 PM

Now, 40 years later, I'd probably be arrested.

No way. I see the abysmal state to which biblical studies has fallen.

Arrested, my foot!!! The correct biblical punishment for blaspheny, as all bible students know is...stoning to death.

Posted by: mikmik | May 31, 2011 5:49 PM

Posted by: azumahazuki These people do not think like us, will not think like us, and are expressly forbidden to think like us. Their entire worldview is Bible-steeped. We need to know the material better than they do, AND know the outside references to it and how it fits in the real world. KNOW THY AUDIENCE.

I'll give you a hint: their worldview is not bible based. See my post #142
They think it is rationally based, but it isn't. So telling them they are not rational doesn't make sense to them because they are rational to them and therefore your arguments don't fit their understanding of what rationality is. It is subtle, to be sure, but no matter how clinical and methodological your argument, based on an intricate knowledge of the bible, it's history, cultural anthropology, archaeology, sociology, quantum fucking mechanics of the bible, it does not matter, it does not matter, IT DOES NOT MATTER!
You do not know your enemy one bit yourself. i already said that even if final irrefutable proof against the existence of God existed, they would still believe in Him, Jesus Christ, and also that the Bible is true.

What does that fricking tell you? You are still trying to make them understand based on your worldview. They know this, but they are right that "you don't understand" their logic and worldview.

Effect: feelings of serenity, spirituality, belonging,(last two same thing to me) importance, loved, sense of purpose, relief at not having to figure life out - they want to be sheep!!! FFS!!
Cause: Belief in Jesus Christ
Empirical evidence: Their friends, family, people at church, on the internet(forums etc). Countless examples that it works and therefore it is true. That is how people think. It doesn't matter how misguided or mistaken they are, to them it makes sense look at all the examples!
Nothing rational will work, no matter how rigorous!

I am doing what it takes to "know thy enemy." I've been living with them for two years, Pentacosts, evangelicals, pastors with degrees in sociology and psychology, of which one in particular is a friend.

I have made up original and unique approaches to debating with then, I have provided example that Jesus doesn't come into your heart just cause everyone prays for you and you sincerely ask in your heart. I know(I think) these people inside and out. They are mostly very good and compassionate and mature people that are emotionally very healthy and intellectually astute.
I even can make better arguments FOR Christianity than them, FFS!
When they ask how athiesm will give them what religion does, that is a very profound fucking question.
PZ, everyone, I hope you are listening to this.
If they got everything that their beliefs and religion give them just for believing that THERE IS NO GOD, that is all that means anything to "them." They don't want to think hard and learn what critical thinking entails and that it provides a tremendous sense of 'spirituality' when you understand reality and have confidence in what is truth and what is bullshit.
Fuck, I can go on and on (I know I already have!) and on.
They want easy and immediate PROFOUND results.
That is what will convince them, and until then, I almost don't blame them for saying, "shut the fuck up you whiners and judgmental arrogant pseudo-intellectuals. We are already deeply contented with life, or at least with the way things are - right now!."

Posted by: azumahazuki | May 31, 2011 5:51 PM

@171
Actually Buddhism fascinates me, and it's also incredibly complicated and diverse. And corrupted: if you think Christianity has issues staying on message Buddhism is an order of magnitude worse.

I took a course on it in college and have been pursuing those studies in parallel with my studies of the Abrahamic religions. It's amazing how many things are similar and yet different between Christianity and Buddhism.

As awful as Buddhism can get, it's still better, infinitely better, than Christianity with regards to its afterlife. Yes, spending a few decillion years in Avici (yes, I did the math) for shredding an image of Buddha (which is technically "shedding the blood of a Buddha") is retarded...but even a hundred decillion years is nothing compared to infinity. People don't get this.

Reminds me of a very dark Touhou fic idea I had where the local Yama, Eiki, gets captured by immortals Mokou and Kaguya, and the mind-reading Satori wires her into the minds of everyone in all the Hells at once. She doesn't take it well (hint: she dies of fright. over and over again.)

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | May 31, 2011 6:11 PM

... As it happens, though no expert and not considering the matter particularly important, I am inclined to accept the view of the majority of scholars, including non-Christians, that a real individual is at the core of the Jesus mythology; but I've yet to see anything approaching a conclusive argument for that position.

Yeah, that.

I've said it before, will say it again: I tend to assume there probably was a historical figure. I mean, let's face it, charismatic con men pretending variously to talk to and/or be deities are pretty much a dime a dozen. It's hardly what you'd call a wild conjecture.

That said, the evidence is pretty thin. I sorta see this as a case for Mr. Occam, but not a place he's gonna be able to do particularly stellar work. Seems slightly more parsimonious there was some sorta historical figure at the kernel of the thing. Tho' which parts (if any) of the wildly mythologized version that survives to this day particularly resemble him, who the fuck knows?

So it has always amused me, the histrionics of those jumping up and down and excitedly shouting 'conspiracy theory' or 'revisionism' or what have you...

Sure, if the mythicist comes to you and says they know it was entirely a mythical figure, fine, that's bull; they can't know that on what we have...

But sauce for the goose and gander and all, the historicist really isn't any further ahead, honestly, if they go and start claiming comparable certainty. This really is one of those questions you're unlikely ever to resolve solidly. As lots of thinkers prior to and more august than myself have concluded. As, y'know, those excited histrionics aside, it's really the only honest conclusion.

And, more to the point, it's kinda all beside the point, anyway. And I have to add, given that: it's an odd fixation on the part of those who seem to care so much. There's something a little bit mad anyone anyone insisting it's so fucking important, if you ask me.

I mean tell ya what, bub: just acknowledge for that if there was a figure, it was so heavily mythologized, and I think we can say we've done our good deed for the day, here. Whether you want also to say whether or not you figure there rilly, truly was some guy 'round that time doing parlour magic tricks, hey, what the fuck, it's a free country...

Yeah, seriously, get that part right, say mythologized slowly and carefully with me, I think we can get along, and you'll be the better man for it...

I mean, unless you really want to insist you're taking it on the say-so of a 2,000 year old political pamphlet there was a guy walking 'round then who could raise the dead, mess with herds of pigs' minds and turn water into wine.

Seriously. A little perspective, here, does a body good.

(/The oath, as proposed: 'I [name here] do solemnly swear I don't believe I can wither a fig tree with the force of my freaky cool mind rays, just by taking my tinfoil hat off. Really. I'm totally onboard with all y'all, there.')

Posted by: CJO | May 31, 2011 6:13 PM

Any approach using reason and fact is going to fail.

For a subset of believers, I have no doubt that's true. But a great many believers have either deconverted entirely or converted to liberal strains of Christianity from science-denying fundamentalist sects after coming to understand reason and facts they had previously not understood, not considered with intellectual honesty, or been sheltered from. Both Avalos and Ehrman fall into this category I think.

Reason and fact isn't a panacea, but surely it's the best lever we have.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 6:29 PM

I also dislike how it refuses even to ponder certain questions that virtually every other religion tackles

I confess I don't know what you mean. (It's clear I don't know much about historical Buddhism. I've been interested almost entirely in the 20th century USA brands, and not even very interested in those.)

Posted by: azumahazuki | May 31, 2011 6:39 PM

@189

There were several questions Buddha canonically refused to answer. Is there a God or not? Is the universe eternal or not. Is the body of the tathagatta (this is almost certainly a later addition) in Nirvana existent, non-existent, neither existent nor non-existent, both, or something else?

Things like that.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 6:52 PM

Reason and fact isn't a panacea, but surely it's the best lever we have.

Honestly I have come to believe otherwise. Not to say that reason and facts aren't part of the solution, but I don't think they're the crucial part.

Part of my reasoning is that it appears children can be brought up as atheists, by atheist parents, without really understanding the arguments for atheism any better than children of Christians understand the arguments for Christianity.

Another factor is emotional priming. See this paper and the discussion in that thread. The reasoning that was effective at moving people toward acceptance of evolution and away from intelligent design, was only effective on its own for a very small demographic: college students majoring in natural sciences. But the very same reasoning became more effective with other demographics when accompanied by certain emotional priming, "the Sagan condition".

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 7:26 PM

There were several questions Buddha canonically refused to answer. Is there a God or not? Is the universe eternal or not. Is the body of the tathagatta (this is almost certainly a later addition) in Nirvana existent, non-existent, neither existent nor non-existent, both, or something else?

I see what you mean. This, to me, makes the secularized versions of American Buddhism almost tolerable. Still unnecessary, but at least they don't demand focus on things which shouldn't matter to me at all.

My problem with those secularized Buddhisms, which amount to little more than meditation, is that the people involved are typically still so annoyingly full of woo.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 31, 2011 7:30 PM

I am one of those kids, or I was when I was a kid. I encountered God and Jesus in Christmas carols, they were about as real and fleshed out as Santa and Batman. (Okay, maybe Batman seemed a fair bit more realistic.) Atheism wasn't something that I needed explained, it was just what was accepted truth around my house.

I could still be that person were it not for an interest in mythology, Greek, Sumerian, Egyptian, Norse, whatever. It got me into some comparitve readings of the bible, but never as a factual account. I first encountered the idea that many people believed and that it was a big deal. on the internet. For all I know my siblings still are casual atheists, we aren't that close geographically or emotionally.

What I do know is that nine out of ten time when I was out to someone as an atheist the first thing out of their mouths is "so what happens when you die." It is very seductive for me to blame religion on fear of death given that always seems to be brought up.

Thing is, it doesn't seem to bear out in the real world. It's not fear of death that seems to correlate so much as certainty of inequality. Look at where secularity has made it's largest inroads, societies with strong social nets and small gaps between the wealthy and the poor. Then look at the US with it's rising froth of religion and the concentration of wealth that has run in tandem. It is hard to ignore these connections.

I am rambling and uncertain how to combine what I am thinking into a rational structure, but I see empirical evidence that society responds to certain things by discouraging religious behaviour, or at least by de-emphasizing it. Should we maybe focus on a bigger picture than one at a time conversion?

Posted by: David Marjanović | May 31, 2011 7:45 PM

I first encountered the idea that many people believed and that it was a big deal. on the internet.

What... the...

...fuck.

How old were you then?

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | May 31, 2011 8:01 PM

David,
I lived a secular life, with secular friends, in a school system that was secular while most of the religious people who I might have known went to the seperate Catholic School Board and had friends there. My grandparents were not religious, my parents, aunts, and uncles were not religious (save one uncle and his wife who lived well over the border into the US.) My teachers were not allowed to talk about religion and would actively discourage religious conversation among students in class.

My exposures to religion were in fiction, tv shows and movies, and seeing as how I knew those things were fake I didn't put much stock in what they told me. I was sheltered, I didn't meet one person who was overtly antagonistic towards my lack of belief, which I have always been open about, until I started commenting on internet forums. Ergo, I didn't know that religion was a big deal until the internet. Prior to that I thought it more like an affectation, such as a sports team fan or some such.

Posted by: Steve | May 31, 2011 8:21 PM

"We just don't need Bible scholars who layer on more crud."

I would put Bart Ehrman in that category. He's a respected scholar, true, and he's hardly a fundamentalist. However, he dismisses out of the hand the Mythicist position that Jesus never existed as a historical person. I think that is not because he has examined the case for Christianity having started with a mythical Christ rather than an historical Jesus, but because he can't let go of Jesus the nice hippy in Birkenstocks who loved the poor, the icon of so many liberal Christian scholars.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 8:23 PM

Shit, that was supposed to say Maybe economic inequality heightens mortality salience.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 8:39 PM

I lived a secular life, with secular friends, in a school system that was secular while most of the religious people who I might have known went to the seperate Catholic School Board and had friends there. My grandparents were not religious, my parents, aunts, and uncles were not religious

I'm happy to hear that some people are having this experience!

Posted by: NiftyAtheist | May 31, 2011 8:59 PM

So much to read! I think there is merit in a varied approach strategy to trying to shine a little more reason on the world. I am sure there is a small per centage of nominal "believers" who simply need to have their own thoughts expressed by others to take the next step back to sanity. But I think PZ's final remark "We just don't need Bible scholars who layer on more crud." is the bottom line. Just like all battles for "hearts and minds" (haaaaa), more and more layers of argument only obfuscates the truth and confuses part of the audience, annoys another part, bounces off a third part and plays right into the hands of a fourth part - the same part that uses the introduction of falsehoods and innuendo into the public sphere to stir up doubts and baseless accusations. Basically, I recoil from treating religion with such undeserved "respect" anymore.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/6c2eZFlykPn9LHxK2gbVcSO7JuUizjg-#f95a1 | May 31, 2011 9:34 PM

I tend to agree with John Loftus on this. He is basically suggesting that we talk to Christians where they're at. It's hard to get through to hardcore Christians without knowing the theology - otherwise, it's easier for them to be dismissive of you . . . "you're just an atheist who's never studied the Bible, what would you know?"

Ultimately this discussion is about how to best to "win the fight" - is taking the hardline approach the right way or is diplomacy the right way? I would say right now, PZ, you're more Malcolm X and John is more Martin Luther King Jr.

Posted by: truthspeaker | May 31, 2011 9:38 PM

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ Author Profile Page | May 31, 2011 7:26 PM

I see what you mean. This, to me, makes the secularized versions of American Buddhism almost tolerable. Still unnecessary, but at least they don't demand focus on things which shouldn't matter to me at all.

My problem with those secularized Buddhisms, which amount to little more than meditation, is that the people involved are typically still so annoyingly full of woo.

My problem with some of them is that they cozy up to the Dalai Lama, who is the inheritor of a Buddhist tradition that is decidedly not secular. It reminds me of American "moderate" Christians who cozy up to Rick Warren, with the distinction that the Dalai Lama has a legit political cause to push and Warren doesn't.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 10:14 PM

I conclude that the main thing we can do to reduce religion's sway on people is make it socially unacceptable to be rigidly religious.

How? We've got satire and not much else. (And some of us just aren't very funny.)

It's already socially unacceptable to be a member of an immigrant minority religion, and yet this doesn't seem to have an effect on their religiosity.

The religious already have insular social groups where they can retreat from secular culture.

I'd say our more immediate goal is to make it socially acceptable to be openly atheist. Pretty well done already in the social spheres of musicians and scientists. For the rest, we still need to provide alternative sources of existential meaning, and economic support, generally speaking yet more secular alternatives to all the social support systems that religious communities provide.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | May 31, 2011 10:33 PM

I even think many of them are well aware that bible literalism is preposterous, their gods probably do not exist and their ideology is vicious, destructive and tribal.

Having never been a biblical literalist, I can't speak to that, but I definitely believed that God existed for many years—it was just perfectly obvious to me—and I was entirely capable of overlooking the viciousness even when I was into the more conservative stuff.

It was easy to believe that God was love, although this seems to have spurred me to believe more and more in the eventual universal reconciliation of souls in hell, and so what might seem vicious ultimately wasn't.

Were you ever a believer, NiftyAtheist? I have to wonder where this confidence comes from, to think that most believers aren't really.

Posted by: AKron | May 31, 2011 11:21 PM

He's got a poll on his webpage, but I didn't know how to answer, so I didn't vote.

Posted by: llewelly | June 1, 2011 12:13 AM

David Marjanović | May 31, 2011 7:45 PM:

I first encountered the idea that many people believed and that it was a big deal. on the internet.

What... the...

...fuck.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawmKzS29qHe78bUKYjj9yjs7yNCAWKXEaTU | June 1, 2011 12:32 AM

Loftus isn't saying the Courtier's Reply is wrong, not at all; his notion is that for some theists the Courtier's Reply simply won't budge them and yet they might well be there for the taking if one could argue the nonsense of religion but through the lens, the culture and the particular language of religion [theospeak], and in this case, the christianities.

The important element of Loftus' perspective which seems to have been overlooked is, "It takes all of us together with all of our talents, all of our knowledge, and all of our abilities."
Hollowing out from within is just as important as beating them over the head with a brickbat. Our approach to challenging theism can benefit from a little more variety than simply chest-to-chest stuff.

He suggests a wider and more comprehensive strategy with that single goal in mind. The scholarly endeavours of the Bart Erhman's, the Prices' and Avalos', and indeed Loftus himself, are fundamental to that combinatory approach. Loftus does not have the science of a Dawkins, or a Harris, or Jerry Coyne, or a PZ, but he brings to the table the experiential insider world of the believer including 3 areas of post-graduate academic investigation in related fields.
He along with similar others also brings to the table the capacity to refute theist arguments from the theist perspective.

There is no place where believers can hide among the labyrinthine closets of christendom [in this case] because there is an Avalos or a Loftus who can damn-well ferret them out.

Cheers

Posted by: Papalinton | June 1, 2011 12:41 AM

Loftus isn't saying the Courtier's Reply is wrong, not at all; his notion is that for some theists the Courtier's Reply simply won't budge them and yet they might well be there for the taking if one could argue the nonsense of religion but through the lens, the culture and the particular language of religion [theospeak], and in this case, the christianities.
The important element of Loftus' perspective which seems to have been overlooked is, "It takes all of us together with all of our talents, all of our knowledge, and all of our abilities."
Hollowing out from within is just as important as beating them over the head with a brickbat. Our approach to challenging theism can benefit from a little more variety than simply chest-to-chest stuff.
He suggests a wider and more comprehensive strategy with that single goal in mind. The scholarly endeavours of the Bart Erhman's, the Prices' and Avalos', and indeed Loftus himself, are fundamental to that combinatory approach. Loftus does not have the science of a Dawkins, or a Harris, or Jerry Coyne, or a PZ, but he brings to the table the experiential insider world of the believer including 3 areas of post-graduate academic study in theist related fields.
He, along with similar others, also brings to the table the capacity to refute theist arguments from the theist perspective.
There is no place where believers can hide among the labyrinthine closets of christendom [in this case] because there is an Avalos or a Loftus who can damn-well ferret them out.
Cheers

Posted by: Papalinton | June 1, 2011 1:10 AM

@ azumahazuki
You say;
"I am entirely opposed to the idea that we need fewer scholars too. The more we can get the better, especially if they're like Loftus, Avalos, Ehrman, Price, Barker, and so forth.
No one knows how to break a system down like someone who used to be one of the high-ranking insiders. In John Loftus's case he actually was a student of Bill Craig, which should make him one of the most valuable allies we have, given Craig's aggressive proselytization."

I could not agree with you more.
Not only have the Avalos's, Erhman's and Loftus's contributed to the cause of atheism/humanism but through secular biblical scholarship they have continued the tradition of discovering and reporting the inconsistencies, fallacies, misinterpretations, that have for so long been hidden from the public by apologists for so long. No longer will Apologetical biblical scholarship ever again be given a free run, without challenge.

Posted by: Andreas Johansson | June 1, 2011 4:10 AM

strange gods wrote:

What do you think accounts for the modern reduction in religious belief in Europe?

I'm not Mikmik, but I think there's two primary reasons:

i) Social safety nets reducing the need for the psychological reassurance of "God will provide". See discussion earlier in thread.

ii) Religion falling out of fashion with elites.

The second suggests that rational argument may work, indirectly, on the reason-proof, if the elites they look up to are vulnerable to it.

The second may also be the more important one, to judge by the rampant irreligion of much of ex-Communist Europe (where safety nets, funnily enough, tend to be patchier than "Old Europe", sensu Rumsfeld non Gimbutas).

---

Regarding megachurches and religion as a provider of community, are there any data on whether Europeans participate more in non-religious spare-time socialization than Americans?

Posted by: KG | June 1, 2011 7:27 AM

Regarding megachurches and religion as a provider of community, are there any data on whether Europeans participate more in non-religious spare-time socialization than Americans? - Andreas Johansson

I don't know - but it's certainly weird, to a European atheist, that a significant proportion of American atheists, to judge by what I've seen here, choose to join the Unitarian Universalist Church.

Posted by: KG | June 1, 2011 8:39 AM

Jesus the nice hippy in Birkenstocks who loved the poor, the icon of so many liberal Christian scholars. - Steve

I wonder if the traditional western image of Jesus - long hair, beard, caftan, sandals, itinerant - has helped promote this grotesquely un-Biblical (let alone unhistorical) liberal Christian view. Or did it already exist, and help give rise to the stereotypical male hippie look?

Posted by: j-brisby | June 1, 2011 10:20 AM

So why does Loftus get a free pass on misspelling Myers' name?

Posted by: NiftyAtheist | June 1, 2011 10:25 AM

Oops! No it was 217. Wow these comments go up quickly! I can't keep up with all of you! But I am loving it! :D

Posted by: Tyro | June 1, 2011 10:57 AM

I wonder if the traditional western image of Jesus - long hair, beard, caftan, sandals, itinerant - has helped promote this grotesquely un-Biblical (let alone unhistorical) liberal Christian view. Or did it already exist, and help give rise to the stereotypical male hippie look?

1 Corr says that it's disgraceful for a man to have long hair so that's probably out. In Revelations, Jesus is said to have hair like a lamb, which could mean curly, or it could be white or this could be something he acquires after death/resurrection. I think that's the sum total of what the bible says about his appearance. In general, it's safe to say that Jesus of the bible has no physical characteristics at all.

Posted by: Shiloh | June 1, 2011 11:47 AM

"Cut to the core issue; if you haven't shown that Jesus even existed, it's silly to be arguing about the color of his socks."

SIGH!!! Is it no wonder that the so called bright boys here spout off with this garbage when the so called guru here makes dumb statements like this?

PZ, there are non christian sources that mention Jesus. One mentions that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. As much as you want to make Jesus an invention, he did exist. Where the problem begins is when the Catholic Church tried to make him into a god.

Posted by: Paul | June 1, 2011 11:57 AM

PZ, there are non christian sources that mention Jesus. One mentions that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate. As much as you want to make Jesus an invention, he did exist.

[citation needed]

Shiloh is still here? Ugh. I'd love to find a place where throwing out canards without attempting to support them* leads to deleted or disemvoweled posts. It's obscene.

*hell, at least give the citation you're alluding to so we can paste in the canned response, be it Josephus or Tacitus, and either "it's likely a Christian forgery" or "he only was reporting what some Jews believed to have happened" respectively

Posted by: What a maroon | June 1, 2011 12:11 PM

Dovetailing with the previous thread....

Isn't what Loftus is doing somewhat similar to, say, Coyne's argument about the longest cell as a refutation to ID? After all, it ought to be enough to say that if you posit a designer, the burden of proof is on you to show that the universal Yves St. Laurent exists; if you can't show that, then the rest is just noise. But Coyne and his ilk engage the IDiots, and show that biological "design" itself can be downright idiotic.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | June 1, 2011 12:31 PM

Azumahazuki,

I have no real special talents. But I can hold, correlate, cross-reference, and store insane amounts of information,

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 1, 2011 12:42 PM

Shiloh,

Are you at least going to acknowledge the problems with these two sources, as called out by Jadehawk and CJO (and many others, many times, in the past)?

Or are you just going to pretend that one of your sources (Josephus) was forged, and the other merely reporting what a minor sect of religious zealots believed?

The truth is, there is no mention of Jesus, or his execution, that did not originate from the Christian sect itself.

Posted by: CJO | June 1, 2011 12:52 PM

Shiloh, just stop it. You're just parroting something you read once. You have no concept of the actual issues involved in evaluating historical sources. If, in your mind, "scholars have determined" is sufficient justification for your belief in the historicity of Jesus, then great. Believe it all you want. Somewhere else.

Posted by: Paul | June 1, 2011 12:56 PM

Amusingly, there are surely more Randroids 50 years after Atlas than there were Christians at the time the earliest manuscripts were written and distributed. Looks like John Galt is a more compelling Messiah than Christus (which, ffs, wasn't a name -- you trust Tacitus to get the facts on the ground right when he doesn't even get the high level stuff right...).

If, in your mind, "scholars have determined" is sufficient justification for your belief in the historicity of Jesus, then great.

But they don't determine, they just assume! And go with whatever pisses the believers off the least, since they're trying to sell books to a predominantly religious audience! gah!

Posted by: Tyro | June 1, 2011 1:05 PM

The problem with these secular references to Jesus isn't just that they're weak, passing mention of someone that, at best, died decades earlier. It isn't just that there's no indication of where the information came from. It isn't just that some are likely interpolations.

I think a major flaw is that, even setting aside all other minimal skepticism, they tell us virtually nothing about Jesus, certainly don't confirm anything interesting in the gospels. We know nothing about what he did, what he said, which miracles (if any) he was said to have performed, what relationship he bore to the gospels, not even what he looked like.

It's like these idiotic arguments for the existence of God. Someone tries to show something tinkered with our genome hundreds of thousands of years ago and somehow this is seen as evidence for an omnibenevolent, omniscient God who told the Jews not to work on the Sabbath.

If you didn't start with your conclusion, there's no way you could get there from the evidence we've got.

Posted by: CJO | June 1, 2011 1:14 PM

But they don't determine, they just assume!

The unwarranted assumption of historicity is the big problem, but even within such a problematic frame NT scholars of various stripes do good critical work. It's just that, for one such as Shiloh, if a popular book says that a certain conclusion is "determined" and that conclusion plays nice with Shiloh's crippling cognitive biases, then it's just absolutely true, for Shiloh, and I have no interest in another 600 comment tug o' war with the chew toy, who learns nothing and possibly enjoys the experience.

Posted by: Paul | June 1, 2011 1:32 PM

The unwarranted assumption of historicity is the big problem, but even within such a problematic frame NT scholars of various stripes do good critical work.

Granted. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if they simply clearly stated historicity as an assumption, instead of framing it as a conclusion as many scholars do. The latter strikes me as sleazy, and it's very hard for me to ignore.

Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist | June 1, 2011 1:37 PM

Yet, the oldest gospel, Mark, was written only 40 to 45 years after his death

How do you know? What source are you using to determine that Mark's dating of his death is correct?

Posted by: What a maroon | June 1, 2011 2:16 PM

Yet, the oldest gospel, Mark, was written only 40 to 45 years after his death. Granted, that is enough time for fluff added to the accounts of Jesus' life. However, that really is a very short time for Jesus to be nothing more than an invented man.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 1, 2011 2:23 PM

nigelTheBold:

Shiloh,
Are you at least going to acknowledge the problems with these two sources, as called out by Jadehawk and CJO (and many others, many times, in the past)?

I guess the answer is, "No."

If it's this hard to get an agnostic to admit his cherished sources are logically questionable, imagine how hard it is to get a theist to listen to reason, no matter how much Biblical education you have.

Posted by: Paul | June 1, 2011 3:33 PM

but on a cult that believed a man named Jesus Christus lived and was executed.

FTFY. This is the Antiquities version of talking about Cowboy BeBop at his computer*.

*It's fun linking to TVTropes again. I stopped for awhile, but I will no longer show mercy.

Posted by: Paul | June 1, 2011 3:42 PM

Erm, I should have chosen a better word than bitch when talking about inveterate complaining. In my defense, in my head "bitch" is still closer to "kvetch" than any sort of gendered meaning. Working on not using the highly gendered insults, as other words convey the same meaning without the underlying connotations. Didn't catch it until I hit submit. Will stop spamming the thread now.

Posted by: fatpie42 | June 2, 2011 7:25 AM

Richard Dawkins recommends Bart Ehrman's "Misquoting Jesus" in "The God Delusion".

But of course, you don't need to have read Dawkins' main book on religion in order to criticise his position on the matter, eh? *sighs*

Posted by: Aratina Cage | June 2, 2011 11:56 PM

Scholars have determined that it is genuine.

What really annoys me about you, Shiloh, is that we can show you the same thing 20 times and it never registers with you. But alas, I'll try again. Please go back to the Wikipedia page on that fragment and this time read the damn thing to see that it is still held in contention for various reasons by several scholars.

Posted by: Shiloh | June 3, 2011 12:12 AM

Aratina Cage,

Sorry, but Wikipedia is not the authority. I'm the one who should be annoyed because people here simply ignore my arguments. I know a whole lot more in this area then most people here do. Unfortunately, most here would prefer to put their bets on the absurd like Jesus being some sort of invented person who didn't exist. However, it doesn't wash.

Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem | June 3, 2011 12:21 AM

So, as this is not something I've given much of a crap about, I ought to ask, what are the best works written in the last fifteen years by non-Christians promoting a historical Jesus? Also, since I probably can't understand those, what are some of the simplest works in the last fifteen ...

Posted by: Shiloh | June 3, 2011 11:08 AM

Aratina Cage,
"2) There is not one Jesus but several different versions of him in the Bible."
"4) The character of Jesus in the Bible may be based on several people or on a person not even named Jesus."

Check out Erhman's Teaching Company lectures "The Historic Jesus".
He does a great job in explaining the above. The Gospels are written accounts of oral accounts of Jesus written a number of years after his death and these writers are writing according to their perspective. For instance, one author tries to bring out the culpability of the Jews in killing Jesus. John changes the day from the morning after the beginning of Passover to the day the lambs are slaughtered to indicate that Jesus is the "lamb" of the world who sacrificed himself for our sins. The important thing is that there are stories of Jesus which were independent of other sources that said the same thing. This tends to make them more credible.

"5) The Bible stories are propaganda."

No doubt about it. Scholars have found changed versions designed to make Jesus look even better. After all, they are competing with other religions.

"6) A real Jesus from history that the whole ending theme of the Bible is based on does not make gods real and does not support Christianity's case (unless they wish to admit they worship a dead human not unlike they do in North Korea today)."

In the Gospels, Jesus never claimed to be a god. At Nicea, the vast majority of the Cardinals thought he was not born divine, but later became so. One especially charismatic Cardinal talked them into agreeing that he was born divine since they were under pressure by Constantine to come up with something. After Nicea, the vast majority of Cardinals continue to preach that Jesus was not born divine, but became so later on. Jesus was considered to be the Messiah come to free them from the evil Roman rule. Most Jews expected a great military leader. When Jesus died like a common criminal on a cross, it caused the Christians to scramble for an answer. That is when they settled on the belief that Jesus had a greater purpose, and that was dying for our sins. You see, when you sin against a god, only a god can make amends for these sins.

"3) The Jesus of the Bible, even if based on a real person, could not be a real person and must be fictional."

What is your evidence? Why couldn't there be a person named Jesus who had a small following of people and to whom miracles were attributed too. We have so called miracles attributed to people today. The point is that writings indicated that there was an itinerant preacher from a one horse town who believed like many Jews that there would soon be an end times when God would bring down his Kingdom to earth where the poor and down trodden would be lifted onto and the rich and powerful would be destroyed. Also, the fact that he had such a small following is probably why there were only a couple of outside sources about him.

Posted by: Aratina Cage | June 3, 2011 11:55 AM

@Shiloh #279

Check out Erhman's Teaching Company lectures "The Historic Jesus". He does a great job in explaining the above. The Gospels are written accounts of oral accounts of Jesus written a number of years after his death and these writers are writing according to their perspective.

Oh yes, I would love to read that book sometime. In Erhman's video debates, he points to the discrepancies between the different texts about Jesus with glee to get Christians in the audience to realize that we know that much of the Gospels are completely made up. Now, my question is where to the lies stop? Hmm?

there are stories of Jesus which were independent of other sources that said the same thing.

That is slightly confusing. Are you talking strictly about the tall tales of Jesus in the Bible? Because if you are, what do you mean by "independent"?

In the Gospels, Jesus never claimed to be a god.

The character certainly thought highly of himself, though. Thought he had the ear of God, he did.

When Jesus died like a common criminal on a cross, it caused the Christians to scramble for an answer.

While this is undoubtedly funny to imagine, just where are you getting this from? I know of no historical artifact showing Christians scrambling to find an excuse for why he could be killed.

That is when they settled on the belief that Jesus had a greater purpose, and that was dying for our sins. You see, when you sin against a god, only a god can make amends for these sins.

That makes sense for people who bought into the whole idea of sin, but isn't it reading a bit much into the actual historical record? Do we have any documents showing that progression of thinking in Christianity?

"3) The Jesus of the Bible, even if based on a real person, could not be a real person and must be fictional."
What is your evidence?

I don't think I wrote that well enough. I mean that some things this Jesus character does in the stories could not have been done by a real person. It's like saying that Captain Picard is real when it is the actor Patrick Stewart who is real. The character does impossible things, the actor does not. If we were to uncover a biographical text called "The Life and Teachings of Jesus", we would undoubtedly find a man who is quite different from the pumped up personality we read of in the New Testament books.

Why couldn't there be a person named Jesus who had a small following of people and to whom miracles were attributed too.

There could have been, but it isn't at all necessary. I mean, is Xenu real? Did angels really speak to Joseph Smith? Do you really think a hiked up a mountaintop to talk to a burning bush? Take any religion and you are bound to find purely fictional characters within its holy texts. I remain unconvinced that Jesus must be attached to a real human at this time but I will not abandon that as a real possibility.

We have so called miracles attributed to people today.

We do, and they are all charlatans. I still can't believe the number of Christians who know this for a fact about Joseph Smith but refuse to apply it to Jesus.

The point is that writings indicated that there was an itinerant preacher from a one horse town who believed like many Jews that there would soon be an end times when God would bring down his Kingdom to earth where the poor and down trodden would be lifted onto and the rich and powerful would be destroyed.

Couldn't there have been more than one such preacher? Couldn't that entire backstory be someone's wholly imaginary conception?

Also, the fact that he had such a small following is probably why there were only a couple of outside sources about him.

That, or the whole thing was made up and spread by a small group of zealots at first until it gained traction.

Posted by: KG | June 3, 2011 12:35 PM

We have Gospels that were written separately from one another - Shiloh

Aaaaand Shiloh destroys his claims to be a Biblical scholar in half a sentence!

Posted by: Shiloh | June 6, 2011 10:01 PM

Aratina Cage,
"In Erhman's video debates, he points to the discrepancies between the different texts about Jesus with glee to get Christians in the audience to realize that we know that much of the Gospels are completely made up. Now, my question is where to the lies stop? Hmm? "

Yes, there are a number of areas of the Gospels that are made up. For instance, the Wise men following the star that was very large and stood over a house where Jesus was at about 2 years old would have been so unusual, that it would have had to have been reported in non Christian literature. A story of everyone scrambling to their place of birth to pay a tax. There is no literary evidence of this and the fact that that would be so disruptive that such a situation would be absurd. However, there are a number of passages that have been determined authentic, so just because some aren't does not mean that Jesus didn't exist. Don't forget that Apostle Paul wrote less than 20 years after Jesus' death. Paul was not an eye witness, but he knew several of Jesus' disciples.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 6, 2011 10:54 PM

*sigh*

However, there are a number of passages that have been determined authentic

Which ones?

How was this alleged "authenticity" determined?

Posted by: Shiloh | June 7, 2011 9:02 PM

Forbidden Snowflake,
"Do you understand why it's problematic to talk about "20 years after Jesus' death" when the whole argument is about whether Jesus' life (and, consequentially, death) even took place?
If Jesus never lived, the time constraint of his alleged death means nothing. The story could have been circulating for 50 years before reaching Paul."

You are overlooking one thing, and that is that Paul knew some of Jesus' disciples.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 7, 2011 9:52 PM

Shiloh:

You are overlooking one thing, and that is that Paul knew some of Jesus' disciples.

We went out drinking the other night, and Mark says to me, "nigel, you are a fuckin' lightweight. Jesus used to get so fucked up, he'd have to turn water into fuckin' wine. Or did I already tell you that story?"

John was not any better. He said, "nigel, I love ya bro, no shit. Have you ever had the Son of God fuckin' give you a hummer? You ain't had no blowjob 'til you've had a fuckin' divine blowjob, let me tell ya'. It's like a Hoover on the end of your swingin' johnson."

I'm tellin' you. Don't go out with them. it doesn't matter how fuckin' hard up you are for a night on the town. They are fuckin' assholes.

That's all I'm sayin'.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | June 7, 2011 10:05 PM

Oh, for fuck's sake. It seems I might fucking proofread once in a while.

There's an historic Elvis, too, and he will neverThe Church of Elvis.

There's an historic Elvis, too, and he will never be the person represented by The Church of Elvis.

Sigh

Posted by: Shiloh | June 9, 2011 12:03 AM

CJO,

"This kind of argument has force only if you insist on reading the gospels into the Pauline epistles. "

Not sure why this would nullify the fact that Paul claims to know disciples of Jesus. My reason for bringing this up is as an indication that Jesus really did exist. Granted, Paul doesn't say much about Jesus. However his churches are based on Christianity. What is sad, is that Paul didn't say more about Jesus since it appears that he had access to his disciples who were eye witnesses.

Posted by: Owlmirror | June 9, 2011 1:41 AM

I'm still waiting for an answer to my questions, Shiloh...

You wrote:

However, there are a number of passages that have been determined authentic

Which ones?

How was this alleged "authenticity" determined?

Posted by: dzzzz | December 8, 2011 10:12 AM

Its not worth arguing with religious nutters. Just ask em to prove that their God exists