Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
We're not on the same side, though we have some limited agreement. I don't really have a dog in the fight, because while I accept evolution as true it's not something I'm concerned with convincing others of the truth of.
No, evolution depends on a posteriori reasoning. It's about creating a provisional model to explain observed phenomena, and then adjust that model as deficiencies are exposed. It's not a matter of truth or falsity, but whether or not the model produces viable predictions that prove themselves out. As a model, it's neither provably true nor provably false. It simply provides a high degree of utility and is generally accepted as acccurate because it has repeatedly generated accurate predictions.
It's science. There is no place in science for the supernatural. I'm sorry that is a problem for you.
It also isn't the topic of the thread, or sub-forum and is hard to do without venturing into the forbidden land of "general apologetics", which I am trying very hard to do.
The problem is that actual historians (as opposed to "biblical scholars") have almost nothing to work with. There are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive. If it weren't for the fact that he is claimed to be a rather minor figure in an unimportant region in a time when comprehensive record keeping did not exist. (No articles in the Decapolis Times, no court records, etc.). If we had no records of Joseph Smith before stories of him were told in Utah, I'd be inclined to think he was made up by Brigham Young. Since those kinds of records that clearly demonstrate the "career" of Joseph Smith did not exist in the 1st century we can't infer anything from Jesus failing to make a contemporary impression. This is the only thing that brings me to the "more likely an actual person" position.
Perhaps you should stop trying to evaluate my positions or motivations. You keep getting them wrong. It isn't apathy, nor even a lack of interest. I just said that I likely hadn't studied the subject as much as NxNW. I have not read any specialized books on the topic, perhaps he has. As to these "non-historical considerations" my position on the divinity does not influence my assessment of existence. Certainly not as much as it would for a believer who can't contemplate the "non-existence" position.
This isn't about everything. It is about a scientific theory (Darwinian evolution and successors), questions of supernaturalism are irrelevant to the discussion of scientific theories.
This seems to misunderstand the types of evidence that is typical in history, because there is more evidence of Jesus in more contemporaneous form than a number of historical figures. The objections and aspersions about whether Jesus existed are purely the result of bias, and not based in an understanding of the types of historical evidences that are typically found. Atheist scholars have produced lists of historical figures whose existence is less secure than Jesus', which nobody would seriously entertain questioning. To claim "there are no records of Jesus from the time he was alive" is a specious objection because such documents are vanishingly rare for most historical figures, particularly ones in antiquity. So if such a thing is a problem for Jesus, then its a problem for history in general. That you express questions is more demonstrative of your bias than anything else.
You may not, but that poster confirmed they were a mythicist
It certainly appears as much, given the fringe nature that questioning the existence of Jesus tends to be regarded with by scholars both atheist and Christian. There is no serious reason to question the existence of Jesus, and typically the non-existence position is built on false pretenses such as your objection about a lack of documentation while he was alive. That we have documents within 30 years of his life is more than we have on a number of far more prominent(historically speaking) figures.
So you say, but if it were purely a matter of scientific theories I suspect you wouldn't be spending your time on a website called Christian forums to discuss such things.
I made no aspersions.
What are these lists titled? "Historical Figures less well Attested than Jesus, by A. N. Atheist". Are you talking about studies of historical figures published without reference to Jesus or comparative historical documentation, or are we talking about lists compiled from secular histories by Christian apologists.
That's not my point or what I wrote.
Your "bias detector" is showing.
And I've been trying to demonstrate the difference an active belief in a non-historical alternative and having serious doubts about historicity.
There are other kinds of scholars. A better split would be Christian versus secular. Christian scholars do their work *as Christians* while secular scholars (regardless of their own religion) do not consider their own religious position.
Sure there are given that the *only* stories about the life of Jesus are deeply theological in nature. You see an objection I DIDN'T make. Of course I don't expect birth certificates, press reports, or trial records. That was my point, there is a difference between the first half of the first century and of the 19th century. Though that no contemporary chronicler notices his ministry or his movement until a few decades after his death indicates it was a pretty small ministry/movement.
The religiously motivated version of his story also takes a few decades to show up, which puts doubts into the accuracy of the portrayal of events.
I came here to discuss pseudoscience like ID/creationism. It is entirely about countering it. My opposition to such stuff hasn't changed when I stopped believing. I was an anti-creationist Christian, though I had no idea this site existed. That's what I came here for. Unfortunately people keep bringing in unrelated religious issues into the discussions.
For many of the subjects we discuss here, a good review paper is quite appropriate and since those kinds of papers tend to be aimed at broader audiences and are more accessible to non-specialist audiences.
Some of us didn't make that decision for ourselves.
I've been trying to convince my collaborators that we should stop writing 25+ page papers with high text density. (Quit trying to throw in the kitchen sink guys.)
I prefer bilaterianism as I like the symmetry of things.
No, there is still no opinion. There is nothing for science to have an opinion about. Just an account in a book, no physical evidence to examine to determine the nature of the event, no examinable evidence that the miracle occured at all.
You wrote, “no contemporary chronicler notices his ministry or his movement until a few decades after his death indicates it was a pretty small ministry/movement.” Mathew was not a chronicler? If you only accept chroniclers without an agenda, then you don’t think much of the study of history. Name one chronicler before the mid-1800s that did not have agenda. I can only think of one: Pliny the Elder, but I’m sure you can think of more.I made no aspersions.
What are these lists titled? "Historical Figures less well Attested than Jesus, by A. N. Atheist". Are you talking about studies of historical figures published without reference to Jesus or comparative historical documentation, or are we talking about lists compiled from secular histories by Christian apologists.
That's not my point or what I wrote.
Your "bias detector" is showing.
And I've been trying to demonstrate the difference an active belief in a non-historical alternative and having serious doubts about historicity.
There are other kinds of scholars. A better split would be Christian versus secular. Christian scholars do their work *as Christians* while secular scholars (regardless of their own religion) do not consider their own religious position.
Sure there are given that the *only* stories about the life of Jesus are deeply theological in nature. You see an objection I DIDN'T make. Of course I don't expect birth certificates, press reports, or trial records. That was my point, there is a difference between the first half of the first century and of the 19th century. Though that no contemporary chronicler notices his ministry or his movement until a few decades after his death indicates it was a pretty small ministry/movement.
The religiously motivated version of his story also takes a few decades to show up, which puts doubts into the accuracy of the portrayal of events.
I came here to discuss pseudoscience like ID/creationism. It is entirely about countering it. My opposition to such stuff hasn't changed when I stopped believing. I was an anti-creationist Christian, though I had no idea this site existed. That's what I came here for. Unfortunately people keep bringing in unrelated religious issues into the discussions.
Matthew was not a contemporary. He wrote 40 years after the ministry of Jesus. His work is also mostly based on a similarly aged text also written by a non-witness, non-contemporary derived from the internal tales of the community of followers.
Pliny is good. There is also Philo. I'm sure there are a couple others. The ministry must have been reasonable small or unimportant enough to be noticed, but it is hard to quantify what is "too small". Around the time gospels are written, then external observers do start to notice and mention the movement, including Pliny the Younger.
I know the theory, but I will go with the traditional approach that Mathew wrote a few decades after Jesus, but he was contemporary with Christ. This was Origen’s opinion.
If it helps, I won't be posting much here, if at all. Almost everything I've posted has been ignored and I just don't have the time each day to try and elbow my way past all the other science advocates just so I can debate with a creationist who's doing little more than repeating decades old talking points.
40-50 years would be "a few decades after Jesus".
not a shift. things are that uncertain.
It just isn't. Neo-Darwinism is not a religion for any part of the scientific community and some parts don't care about it at all. As for the religious community, creationism is not as important as you claim. I went most of my Christian existence with out meeting any Christians who cared about it.
I've finally met someone from a different planet! Where is it? Is it some sort of anti-Earth we don't see, where everything is the opposite of what we see here on good old Terra Firma?
Agenda driven, cliche ridden, evidence free assertions have no place in science, in religion, in philosophy, or in interesting posts on internet forums. When you post something of substance I shall be happy to respond.I've finally met someone from a different planet! Where is it? Is it some sort of anti-Earth we don't see, where everything is the opposite of what we see here on good old Terra Firma?
Evolutionary theory is, of course, not an actual religion but a functional one. Philosophical materialism - which is indeed the equivalent of religious dogma - leaves no room for anything but some form of evolutionary theory. The tactics used by the keepers of the neo-Darwinian paradigm are precisely those used by the creationist community to preserve the creationist paradigm from challenge, which is why the "dialogue" ends up being mostly irrational. In those scientific disciplines where evolution is most relevant, it is an article of faith considerably out of proportion to the actual evidence and many problems. Try telling the scientists in the ID movement that evolution doesn't have the status of quasi-religious dogma.
I, of course, don't know about your Christian experience, but certainly a high level of skepticism toward evolutionary theory exists within much of the Christian community. I would say it's more "doubt about evolution" than "rabid creationism." I find that large numbers of Christians, like me, sense that current evolutionary theory is missing some critical explanatory link. It would help, of course, if there were anything like a scientifically plausible theory of the origin of life - that now being a bigger mystery than it was thought to be 50 years ago. I find some of the "math" to be most compelling - i.e., 4.5 billion years, which seems like a long time when you're stuck in the checkout line at Safeway, not being nearly long enough for life to have arisen and evolved in the manner that evolutionary theory posits.
It's not that I find evolutionary theory threatening to my biblical worldview, because I really don't have a creationist biblical worldview. It's that I find it an inadequate explanation that seems increasingly outdated as other disciplines like cosmology and physics advance. The fact that the scientific community clings to it, kicking and screaming, seems like precisely what Thomas Kuhn described in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
