Ask a Christian philosopher a question

[HitchSlap]

I am aware of this. I am a New Testament scholar myself.

You have a Ph.D. in ancient literature?

 

[bhsmte]

I like this and must concur that the temptation is always to defend oneself. I concur that we are called to turn people's attention to Truth. To Jesus.

Problem is, you fail to demonstrate this truth.

 

[anonymous person]

You have a Ph.D. in ancient literature?

No.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.

Do you have a Ph.D.?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

But there are those that do find what I say credible.

I find that doubtful.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Would you agree that:

1. Reality exists.
2. We can learn some things about reality.
3. Falsifiable models with predictive capabilities work better than those without.

Sorry to nitpick, but regarding the first proposition, isn't it somewhat of a tautology to say "reality exists"? By definition, it cannot fail to exist; otherwise it wouldn't be reality.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I think this thread should be renamed "Ask a Christian apologist a question." The title currently primes the reader to expect a response from a philosopher, which they are not likely to receive.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I like this and must concur that the temptation is always to defend oneself. I concur that we are called to turn people's attention to Truth. To Jesus.

That would be inappropriate for this forum, even if you were able to establish your opinion as truth.

No it would not be inappropriate but appropriate. Truth is a very integral part of philosophy in general.

Would you consider intellectual honesty important in the pursuit of truth in philosophy and science?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

if anyone wants to ask me a question post it and I will address it.

What sort of philosophy do you study?

 

[oi_antz]

You personally determine the story to be true, based on your personal experience and interpretation. Nothing wrong with that, but it is why it is called; faith.

Some can't just jump on board like that, without a means to verify something as having a minimum level of outside objectivity, that goes beyond, personal interpretation.

I would quite like to see an example of what He says that you have observed to not be true, or which you have reasonable cause to doubt, and some explanation so that I can understand your reasoning.

 

[oi_antz]

Would you agree that all claims should have evidence for their assertion?

I reckon probably any claim made without evidence in mind, is an untrue claim. Having said that, for claims of truth that are made honestly with evidence in mind, it is reasonable to accept that the evidence the person has in mind when making the claim is very often not disclosed or considered relevant. Also, evidence that is readily available and known at the time of the claim might very well become unavailable over time while the claim remains available, thereby becoming a truthful claim that has no supporting evidence.

 

[anonymous person]

What sort of philosophy do you study?

Philosophy of religion primarily.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Philosophy of religion primarily.

Is that a euphemism for Christian apologetics?

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Philosophy of religion primarily.

That's great. I enjoy reading philosophy of religion. Which philosophers in particular do you engage with?

 

[Oafman]

I have no degree in philosophy.

Would you agree that the description of 'armchair philosopher' applies to you?

 

[Ana the Ist]

My current debate partner is not really putting up much of a fight.

This was funny.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Ana the ist would disagree with you.

Do you mind if I quote you if he decides to respond to my question put to him in our debate? Maybe he would be more inclined to accept what you have said.

Feel free to quote him...it's not exactly a hard claim to counter. They are NT historians after all...they're not exactly gonna sell too many books about the life of Jesus if they tell people there's no historical evidence for Jesus. Hard to get that professor job as a NT historian if you conclude there's no evidence for Jesus.

They all have a vested interest in Jesus being real...it's that or go find a new job lol.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Feel free to quote him...it's not exactly a hard claim to counter. They are NT historians after all...they're not exactly gonna sell too many books about the life of Jesus if they tell people there's no historical evidence for Jesus. Hard to get that professor job as a NT historian if you conclude there's no evidence for Jesus.

They all have a vested interest in Jesus being real...it's that or go find a new job lol.

Most historians, regardless of religious belief, seem to think it more likely that there was a historical Jesus.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Most historians, regardless of religious belief, seem to think it more likely that there was a historical Jesus.

Absolutely true....

Of course....that doesn't mean most historians have examined the evidence for a historical Jesus. It just means they accepted a narrative that christians were willing to kill for over 1500 years. It's not like science where you have peer review.

 

[Aelred of Rievaulx]

Absolutely true....

Of course....that doesn't mean most historians have examined the evidence for a historical Jesus. It just means they accepted a narrative that christians were willing to kill for over 1500 years. It's not like science where you have peer review.

Well, it's not quite like science in that social sciences do not claim the same form of objectivity, yet history does have peer review. Don't get me wrong, there have been some rather interesting trends lately in historical Jesus studies which have incorporated comparative mythology: Thomas L Thompson's "Is this not the Carpenter?" is a great example of this trend, Roland Boer, a New Zealand academic wrote a great chapter in that book on the emergences of historical critical methods in nineteenth century Germany, the importance of Strauss' Lebe Jesu as well as the radical political tradition behind many of these Neo-Hegelian (Marxist?) thinkers. The problem is that the peer review is favouring a different consensus and it has absolutely nothing to do with religious tradition, it is simply the way the data is being analysed today: Jesus mythicism is not popular because most scholars consider there to be something historical about parts of the gospels, not always altogether much but still something.