Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-10-2015, 08:12 PM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 07:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  ...but if one person says something that's hostile, or seen as objectionable in some way, he leaps on that immediately. Undecided
Perhaps you need to taunt more to get his attention.
Tell him that Jesus was a cross dresser or something.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Stevil's post
19-10-2015, 08:35 PM
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 07:59 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm more upset that, while trying to have a reasonable discussion of the historicity question, when I bother to make a detailed refutation of assumptions and provide solid reasons why we cannot presume certain facts not in evidence, complete with providing models of how alternative explanations could have occurred, I'm simply ignored...

...but if one person says something that's hostile, or seen as objectionable in some way, he leaps on that immediately. Undecided

He doesn't want actual discussion. He's never wanted that. He's the same as any other theist, just here to preach while lying about his intent.

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 05:26 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2015 05:31 AM by Tomasia.)
Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 07:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So you haven't watched any of his videos, and know nothing about his views. OK bye.

No I've watched a bunch of his videos, and am familiar with a variety of his views. I've even argued with him personally. If there was someone here who held his views, and wanted to defend them, I'm all for arguing with them.

But since folks here don't find his arguments compelling, or convincing enough to hold themselves, and would likely consider everything he uses to build his argument, as "not evidence", arguing against Carrier is pointless.

I'd be arguing things like why Carrier's conclusions regarding Pauls views are false, to people who believe you can't draw conclusions for historicity, or mythicism using Paul as evidence.

Id be arguing why Carriers views are far from compelling to folks who already believe his views are far from compelling.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 07:07 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 06:50 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm more upset that, while trying to have a reasonable discussion of the historicity question, when I bother to make a detailed refutation of assumptions and provide solid reasons why we cannot presume certain facts not in evidence, complete with providing models of how alternative explanations could have occurred, I'm simply ignored…

I wasn’t ignoring you, but we’re likely to agree more so than disagree. And your post tend to require more from me to respond, then the one’s I can churn out in 2 minutes on a smart phone, before my wife gets home.

Quote:That is not necessarily the only reason it would happen. If, for instance, they were trying to manufacture a basic storyline for a Messianic insight figure, they could come up with something pretty coherent to put down, over the course of the next few years... even Joseph Smith got several versions that varied but were similar in primary details, when he created the Book of Mormon and related scriptures. It's a trait we see in manufactured scriptures of that sort.

Except of course that unlike in Joseph Smith's time, there’s no printing press. And no organized church at the time, but a series of scattered communities. It would be quite difficult to coordinate changes, or additions between these communities. Those changes would be a more than likely be features of one communities version of the story, as opposed to a coordinated change across communities.

In fact even though the Gospels have a great deal in common, there’s also considerable differences, certain stories that appear in one but not the other, like the stoning of the adulterer in John. Even some sayings appear in one Gospel but not the others, etc..

But here we’re primarily talking about the sayings, parables, that are multiply attested to in these works, that incorporate the unique style or irony, and reversal of fortunes, that may be ordered differently in each Gospel, but are near verbatim iterations of each other. The writers of the Gospels, belonged to their respective communities, and didn’t write their works in some coordinated effort with the other writers, but where using hand written copies of copies of variety of sayings, parables, of Jesus. It’s not as if the writer of Mathew acquired the same exact copy used by Mark 20 years earlier, but a copy of his own.

It’s these sort of features, that allows folks like the Jesus Seminar, to deem certain passage as very much like the original; as probably something like the original passage; passages Jesus unlikely did not say, but contain Jesus’s ideas; and passages Jesus likely did not say, and came from later admirers of different traditions.

Quote:The "they mostly agree" argument is not proof of anything other than that the people who penned these stories had a collective mythology among the group which had cohered into a fairly solid composite by the time the writing began.


There’s a bit of difference between what can be referred to as “collective mythologies”, because clearly the disciples had a collective mythology in regards to Jesus, brought along by their belief that he was the Messiah foretold by scriptures, and they had to deal with pesky historical details, such as unexpected and humiliating defeat by the Romans, and features that didn’t really fit into messianic expectations, such as being Nazareth as opposed to Bethlehem, and no clear link to the lineage of David, etc…

But for the most part I wasn’t talking about the collective mythologies, but the collective “parables and sayings”, and great deal can be inferred about their fidelity to original sayings and parables by their consistency among scattered Christian communities.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 09:00 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 07:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:[hide]That is not necessarily the only reason it would happen. If, for instance, they were trying to manufacture a basic storyline for a Messianic insight figure, they could come up with something pretty coherent to put down, over the course of the next few years... even Joseph Smith got several versions that varied but were similar in primary details, when he created the Book of Mormon and related scriptures. It's a trait we see in manufactured scriptures of that sort.[/hide]

Except of course that unlike in Joseph Smith's time, there’s no printing press. And no organized church at the time, but a series of scattered communities. It would be quite difficult to coordinate changes, or additions between these communities. Those changes would be a more than likely be features of one communities version of the story, as opposed to a coordinated change across communities.

In fact even though the Gospels have a great deal in common, there’s also considerable differences, certain stories that appear in one but not the other, like the stoning of the adulterer in John. Even some sayings appear in one Gospel but not the others, etc..

But here we’re primarily talking about the sayings, parables, that are multiply attested to in these works, that incorporate the unique style or irony, and reversal of fortunes, that may be ordered differently in each Gospel, but are near verbatim iterations of each other. The writers of the Gospels, belonged to their respective communities, and didn’t write their works in some coordinated effort with the other writers, but where using hand written copies of copies of variety of sayings, parables, of Jesus. It’s not as if the writer of Mathew acquired the same exact copy used by Mark 20 years earlier, but a copy of his own.

It’s these sort of features, that allows folks like the Jesus Seminar, to deem certain passage as very much like the original; as probably something like the original passage; passages Jesus unlikely did not say, but contain Jesus’s ideas; and passages Jesus likely did not say, and came from later admirers of different traditions.

Right, and I would agree with your (and their) assessment, except for one thing. The "widely-scattered communities" came much later toward the end of 20 years of efforts by that group of Disciples at recruiting and establishing such outposts, while the traditions that formed those communities developed while the Disciples were still in communication as part of a small group, where the cross-bleed would still be strong. Likely, many of them traveled together for much of that time, as a single community, and would have informed one another's views on the storytelling they were doing as they went about recruiting new followers. However, your point about the passages regarding some of the teachings (e.g. Sermon on the Mount, as I previously mentioned) making it appear likely that there was some real teacher whose insights were told among the group and to the early churches in fairly-consistent form. This does not, however, necessarily show that there was a single man called Yeshua.

These could have been collected stories of wisdom among early outlier "esoteric insight" groups, such as the Essenes, which the founders of this new mythology picked up and incorporated as part of their teachings. There are many reasons why a small group of cultists could pick up a coherent series of parables and stories to form into the core of a new faith-tradition. There being a single real teacher/rabbi similar to the personified deity version they're promoting is only one of the possibilities. Given the epistle of James, however, I find the idea of a real, non-miraculous rabbi to be more likely than not, while holding out for the quite-serious possibility that Carrier is right, and Jesus is an amalgamated concept that congealed later.

With respect, you're looking at it through the wrong filter, I think. The agreement between the earliest two gospels, Mark and Matthew, shows that their legends (as told by the eventual authors) were built by communities in communication with one another, and those communities shared their legends back and forth, as members traveled. It also shows that the Disciples came up, over the course of the first decade, with a story that was consistent. By the time we get to Luke/Acts, the story has been embellished to a pretty significant degree, while retaining the same basic core, again a symbol of an original story at Year Ten (when the presumed Q documents were formed) that was then promulgated over the next ten years among varying communities by a group of people telling a single dogma (in time for the embellishments we see in Matthew), but that story continued to change and be embellished as the tales continued to be retold. After the destruction of Jerusalem, their anti-Roman-authority cult had taken on a distinctly more aggressive note, and we see massive changes to the story in John, including more miracles than are listed in the other books combined.

(20-10-2015 07:07 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
Quote:The "they mostly agree" argument is not proof of anything other than that the people who penned these stories had a collective mythology among the group which had cohered into a fairly solid composite by the time the writing began.

There’s a bit of difference between what can be referred to as “collective mythologies”, because clearly the disciples had a collective mythology in regards to Jesus, brought along by their belief that he was the Messiah foretold by scriptures, and they had to deal with pesky historical details, such as unexpected and humiliating defeat by the Romans, and features that didn’t really fit into messianic expectations, such as being Nazareth as opposed to Bethlehem, and no clear link to the lineage of David, etc…

But for the most part I wasn’t talking about the collective mythologies, but the collective “parables and sayings”, and great deal can be inferred about their fidelity to original sayings and parables by their consistency among scattered Christian communities.

You keep pointing to the "humiliation" of the defeat by the Romans (in the execution of Jesus), but I see that as their entire motivation for coming up with a version in which it is NOT humiliating-- the triumphal "soon" return of the prophesied Messiah. As I wrote a few times before, it's a way for them, psychologically, not to admit that they'd been following a charlatan around for three years, prior to the start of their evangelical outreach program after his death. It's why we see Jesus promising to return within the lifetimes of those hearing the message.

The problems in fitting in with the true version of the Davidic prophecies of the Jews is simple... the writers of the stories told to them by the Disciples were not observant/orthodox Jews, and lacked the full knowledge of how to apply the references to the ancient scriptures. They may not have been Jews at all, given that most of the outreach was in former Greek territories in Asia Minor. Numerous reviews of the problems with the poorly-applied attempts to link this Jesus character with the Old Testament prophecies have been written, which show pretty clearly that Paul and some of the other writers had a poor grasp of the Hebrew religion as well as the language and its idioms. One example is the whole "virgin birth" thing, which was a mistranslation/misunderstanding by Matthew of the meaning of the word "Alma" in Isaiah 7:14, which simply means "young woman", and has no relation to the Hebrew word for virgin, which is betulah. There are other Hebrew scriptures, such as Proverbs 30, where "alma" is used to refer to a whore/adulteress who feels no shame for sucking dick (it says she "eats" and then "wipes her mouth and says I have done no wrong"). They simply had no idea what they were doing, which is one of the indicators that the authors were not the real Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Without the virgin birth connection to Isaiah, the entire premise of Christianity falls apart in a single line... likely the reason the actual Hebrews typically found the Christians to be ridiculous.

See a modern Rabbi explain the problem with the virgin birth link to Isaiah, found in Matthew chapter 1, here:

http://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/

Summary: they crafted a myth, even if Jesus was a real person and they did manage to successfully record SOME of the things he taught. The cohesion of the Mark/Matthew accounts suggest NOTHING more than the fact that the communities who wrote those stories got their legends from the same small group of Disciples, who were by then telling and retelling a relatively consistent story.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 09:21 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(19-10-2015 07:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is douchery.

Tomasia, given that you are here at an atheist site, it would be a great opportunity for you to try and learn about us. Overcome some of your silly preconceived ideas about us.

What does "believing in nothing" even mean?
It's a meme that we would expect to hear from drive by tolls. Not something to hear from a person engaged in real conversation with people on this forum.

I should say I wasn’t making a blanket statement about all atheists, and it’s particularly reserved for a particular type of atheist, and it’s not a question of their characters, but descriptive of a line of thought, and argument. People who I’d say fit that script here, is someone like yourself, Chas, TBD, and perhaps one or two others as well. People who don’t, is someone like Rocketsurgeon. There’s a noticeable distinction in the way one group thinks through question, than others do. It drives a curiosity in, in regards to how to account for it.

What I mean by nothing here, is that a typical argument tends to involve two people arguing in favor of two competing conclusions. An argument over historicity, is typically one between someone who subscribes to some version of historicity and another who subscribes to some form of mythicist. It would be like a Carrier vs Ehrman argument.

But for folks, like yourself and Chas, you don’t actually have a competing conclusion. You’re arguing in fact for nothing. It’s an argument for agnosticism, and it’s not even the sort of agnosticism associated with a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but a 4.

Where as someone else would start with a question, such as if there was a historical Yeshua, and what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in that period, and whether what we have is consistent with those expectations. Or if we were to consider the question in terms of non-existing, mythicist Jesus, what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in this case, what would a mythicist Jesus say of Jewish messianic expectations at time, if they allowed for a non-historical messiah, etc.. Questions about when did a mythicist Jesus start to take the form of a historical one. Was this likely to have been unintentional, of part of a concentrated effort, etc…. This thought process involves a comparison of different conclusions, a question of which conclusions are more reasonable than the other, are less prone to violating Occam’s Razor, make better sense of what occurred in that period than the other, offers a greater explanatory capacity. It involves actually thinking through a variety of questions.

If I were to offer a descriptive account of your thought process, it doesn’t start with considering conclusions. It starts with the question of the term “evidence”. You have some predefined criteria for what constitutes as evidence and not. You look at the variety of sources being used for consideration here, and decide whether it in fact fits into the category of “evidence” or “not evidence” (much of the problem here is a result of the inability of individuals such as yourself to translate the meaning of “evidence” across multiple disciplines”. disciples that don’t use historical sources, and ones that do.) If you can squeeze all the material and sources into Stevil/Chas’s category of “no evidence”, then you declare that no conclusions can be drawn, we must all declare our level 4 agnosticism. Not only can we not know one way or the other, we cannot reasonably believe one way or the other. According to this reasoning.

What interesting is this process, doesn’t require much thinking, it’s primarily a means of avoiding thinking through questions all together. It’s a mean of avoiding having to consider questions, a means to deflecting questions from being considered. It’s a way to claim than no question can be asked, no conclusions can be drawn.

Your case is one that argues that we have to set all this material and sources aside, since they fall into Stevil’s category of “no evidence”, and declares that no inferences can be drawn from them in regards to historicity or mythicism. It’s a very odd thought process, one that you likely won’t find advocated by a particular philosopher or school of philosophy, or taught in some course one took on philosophy, or critical thinking. It’s a thought process that appears popularly in communities like this, and it appears that it’s these communities that frame it, encourage, and perpetuate it.

I’m not sure if this is an insulting description, but it is my attempt to describe in more detail what I was suggesting in the previous post. If you don’t agree with the description of your thought process, here, than you can clarify as need be.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2015 09:38 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 09:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 07:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is douchery.

Tomasia, given that you are here at an atheist site, it would be a great opportunity for you to try and learn about us. Overcome some of your silly preconceived ideas about us.

What does "believing in nothing" even mean?
It's a meme that we would expect to hear from drive by tolls. Not something to hear from a person engaged in real conversation with people on this forum.

I should say I wasn’t making a blanket statement about all atheists, and it’s particularly reserved for a particular type of atheist, and it’s not a question of their characters, but descriptive of a line of thought, and argument. People who I’d say fit that script here, is someone like yourself, Chas, TBD, and perhaps one or two others as well. People who don’t, is someone like Rocketsurgeon. There’s a noticeable distinction in the way one group thinks through question, than others do. It drives a curiosity in, in regards to how to account for it.

What I mean by nothing here, is that a typical argument tends to involve two people arguing in favor of two competing conclusions. An argument over historicity, is typically one between someone who subscribes to some version of historicity and another who subscribes to some form of mythicist. It would be like a Carrier vs Ehrman argument.

But for folks, like yourself and Chas, you don’t actually have a competing conclusion. You’re arguing in fact for nothing. It’s an argument for agnosticism, and it’s not even the sort of agnosticism associated with a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but a 4.

Where as someone else would start with a question, such as if there was a historical Yeshua, and what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in that period, and whether what we have is consistent with those expectations. Or if we were to consider the question in terms of non-existing, mythicist Jesus, what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in this case, what would a mythicist Jesus say of Jewish messianic expectations at time, if they allowed for a non-historical messiah, etc.. Questions about when did a mythicist Jesus start to take the form of a historical one. Was this likely to have been unintentional, of part of a concentrated effort, etc…. This thought process involves a comparison of different conclusions, a question of which conclusions are more reasonable than the other, are less prone to violating Occam’s Razor, make better sense of what occurred in that period than the other, offers a greater explanatory capacity. It involves actually thinking through a variety of questions.

If I were to offer a descriptive account of your thought process, it doesn’t start with considering conclusions. It starts with the question of the term “evidence”. You have some predefined criteria for what constitutes as evidence and not. You look at the variety of sources being used for consideration here, and decide whether it in fact fits into the category of “evidence” or “not evidence” (much of the problem here is a result of the inability of individuals such as yourself to translate the meaning of “evidence” across multiple disciplines”. disciples that don’t use historical sources, and ones that do.) If you can squeeze all the material and sources into Stevil/Chas’s category of “no evidence”, then you declare that no conclusions can be drawn, we must all declare our level 4 agnosticism. Not only can we not know one way or the other, we cannot reasonably believe one way or the other. According to this reasoning.

What interesting is this process, doesn’t require much thinking, it’s primarily a means of avoiding thinking through questions all together. It’s a mean of avoiding having to consider questions, a means to deflecting questions from being considered. It’s a way to claim than no question can be asked, no conclusions can be drawn.

Your case is one that argues that we have to set all this material and sources aside, since they fall into Stevil’s category of “no evidence”, and declares that no inferences can be drawn from them in regards to historicity or mythicism. It’s a very odd thought process, one that you likely won’t find advocated by a particular philosopher or school of philosophy, or taught in some course one took on philosophy, or critical thinking. It’s a thought process that appears popularly in communities like this, and it appears that it’s these communities that frame it, encourage, and perpetuate it.

I’m not sure if this is an insulting description, but it is my attempt to describe in more detail what I was suggesting in the previous post. If you don’t agree with the description of your thought process, here, than you can clarify as need be.

I don't get a mention...Censored

I don't quite know why you think it wouldn't fit any school of philosophy. It really goes back thousands of years to the school and though process of skepticism. It's even a pre-Socratic or contemporary of Socrates type of movement. To deny that historical and current movement is a really shameful display of a comment that I would hope you know at least some things about. That's all of what it is boiled down to. When you say, communities like this, yes. That is correct, because this is part of a skeptical based community of why people are on TTA, a podcast/series connected to the skeptical branch of atheists movements, via guys like Michael Shermer, AaronRa, TTA itself, and some other well known content creators on the subject. It's a manner of viewing and searching for answers via the attempts at a skeptical approach with a strong standard for what constitutes evidence or knowledge.

The case about evidence not being labeled out clearly. That one is an issue that is legitimate. Though the idea that defining evidence via a criteria is negative to you is strange. You should want evidence to be defined.

Your diddy about it's not thinking because it's just questions is the silliest bit of anything said there though. Really? Questioning is the thinking. Proclaiming to have an answer and standing within it is the part where you forgo thinking on it anymore. I get what you are saying about posters in your opinion, oh they ridicule your question or something so they're not taking it seriously... well perhaps that happens to poorly parched questions. Questions that pre-assume are considered weaker because of that already taken in answer. The point of questioning is the point of thinking things through, and coming to some set firm stance that you have an answer isn't thinking more than remaining questioning and uncertain.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ClydeLee's post
20-10-2015, 09:41 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 09:21 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(19-10-2015 07:35 PM)Stevil Wrote:  This is douchery.

Tomasia, given that you are here at an atheist site, it would be a great opportunity for you to try and learn about us. Overcome some of your silly preconceived ideas about us.

What does "believing in nothing" even mean?
It's a meme that we would expect to hear from drive by tolls. Not something to hear from a person engaged in real conversation with people on this forum.

I should say I wasn’t making a blanket statement about all atheists, and it’s particularly reserved for a particular type of atheist, and it’s not a question of their characters, but descriptive of a line of thought, and argument. People who I’d say fit that script here, is someone like yourself, Chas, TBD, and perhaps one or two others as well. People who don’t, is someone like Rocketsurgeon. There’s a noticeable distinction in the way one group thinks through question, than others do. It drives a curiosity in, in regards to how to account for it.

What I mean by nothing here, is that a typical argument tends to involve two people arguing in favor of two competing conclusions. An argument over historicity, is typically one between someone who subscribes to some version of historicity and another who subscribes to some form of mythicist. It would be like a Carrier vs Ehrman argument.

But for folks, like yourself and Chas, you don’t actually have a competing conclusion. You’re arguing in fact for nothing. It’s an argument for agnosticism, and it’s not even the sort of agnosticism associated with a 6 on the Dawkins scale, but a 4.

Where as someone else would start with a question, such as if there was a historical Yeshua, and what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in that period, and whether what we have is consistent with those expectations. Or if we were to consider the question in terms of non-existing, mythicist Jesus, what sort of sources and materials would we expect to find in this case, what would a mythicist Jesus say of Jewish messianic expectations at time, if they allowed for a non-historical messiah, etc.. Questions about when did a mythicist Jesus start to take the form of a historical one. Was this likely to have been unintentional, of part of a concentrated effort, etc…. This thought process involves a comparison of different conclusions, a question of which conclusions are more reasonable than the other, are less prone to violating Occam’s Razor, make better sense of what occurred in that period than the other, offers a greater explanatory capacity. It involves actually thinking through a variety of questions.

If I were to offer a descriptive account of your thought process, it doesn’t start with considering conclusions. It starts with the question of the term “evidence”. You have some predefined criteria for what constitutes as evidence and not. You look at the variety of sources being used for consideration here, and decide whether it in fact fits into the category of “evidence” or “not evidence” (much of the problem here is a result of the inability of individuals such as yourself to translate the meaning of “evidence” across multiple disciplines”. disciples that don’t use historical sources, and ones that do.) If you can squeeze all the material and sources into Stevil/Chas’s category of “no evidence”, then you declare that no conclusions can be drawn, we must all declare our level 4 agnosticism. Not only can we not know one way or the other, we cannot reasonably believe one way or the other. According to this reasoning.

What interesting is this process, doesn’t require much thinking, it’s primarily a means of avoiding thinking through questions all together. It’s a mean of avoiding having to consider questions, a means to deflecting questions from being considered. It’s a way to claim than no question can be asked, no conclusions can be drawn.

Your case is one that argues that we have to set all this material and sources aside, since they fall into Stevil’s category of “no evidence”, and declares that no inferences can be drawn from them in regards to historicity or mythicism. It’s a very odd thought process, one that you likely won’t find advocated by a particular philosopher or school of philosophy, or taught in some course one took on philosophy, or critical thinking. It’s a thought process that appears popularly in communities like this, and it appears that it’s these communities that frame it, encourage, and perpetuate it.

I’m not sure if this is an insulting description, but it is my attempt to describe in more detail what I was suggesting in the previous post. If you don’t agree with the description of your thought process, here, than you can clarify as need be.

[Image: Kakashi2.jpg]

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 11:48 AM
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 09:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your diddy about it's not thinking because it's just questions is the silliest bit of anything said there though. Really? Questioning is the thinking. Proclaiming to have an answer and standing within it is the part where you forgo thinking on it anymore. I get what you are saying about posters in your opinion, oh they ridicule your question or something so they're not taking it seriously... well perhaps that happens to poorly parched questions. Questions that pre-assume are considered weaker because of that already taken in answer. The point of questioning is the point of thinking things through, and coming to some set firm stance that you have an answer isn't thinking more than remaining questioning and uncertain.

I think you forgot this part:

"What interesting is this process, doesn’t require much thinking, it’s primarily a means of avoiding thinking through questions all together. It’s a mean of avoiding having to consider questions, a means to deflecting questions from being considered. It’s a way to claim than no question can be asked, no conclusions can be drawn. "

If I were to describe this methodology it's this: There's items that fit into categories called evidence and not evidence. If the items fall into the "not evidence" category, no inferences can be drawn, no questions can be asked, because no answer can be derived from "not evidence".

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2015, 11:52 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2015 11:56 AM by ClydeLee.)
RE: Richard Carrier On the Historicity of Jesus
(20-10-2015 11:48 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-10-2015 09:35 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Your diddy about it's not thinking because it's just questions is the silliest bit of anything said there though. Really? Questioning is the thinking. Proclaiming to have an answer and standing within it is the part where you forgo thinking on it anymore. I get what you are saying about posters in your opinion, oh they ridicule your question or something so they're not taking it seriously... well perhaps that happens to poorly parched questions. Questions that pre-assume are considered weaker because of that already taken in answer. The point of questioning is the point of thinking things through, and coming to some set firm stance that you have an answer isn't thinking more than remaining questioning and uncertain.

I think you forgot this part:

"What interesting is this process, doesn’t require much thinking, it’s primarily a means of avoiding thinking through questions all together. It’s a mean of avoiding having to consider questions, a means to deflecting questions from being considered. It’s a way to claim than no question can be asked, no conclusions can be drawn. "

If I were to describe this methodology it's this: There's items that fit into categories called evidence and not evidence. If the items fall into the "not evidence" category, no inferences can be drawn, no questions can be asked, because no answer can be derived from "not evidence".

I didn't forget it, it's nonsesnical as a complaint about the idea, if it's merely about the attitude people you deal with, I actually talked about that being an issue that may exist. That's up to defining evidence.

To argue for the concept though makes no sense. So what do you know what can have inference or not taken from? So every potential thing should be accepted as something to take inference to the level of evidence?

I heard anecdotally that the moon is made of bbq spare ribs, should I take inferences from this and treat it as evidence of the moons composition? Or should I consider it not evidence because it didn't fit any criteria for what evidence is. There is no reason to accept it as anything but silly non-evidence related comments that don't accurate give you any details. If it doesn't factor into any key trends/tropes/critical criteria for something, I wouldn't consider it being accepted as the something. I think that's a stronger more defined way to label if a thing is a "label" or thing, does it contain enough similar trends/tropes to the thing. Now how many is enough.. that's an undefined guessing mark as far as I can see so it's not gonna be purely rigid.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: