Does adding items to a doctrine increase points of failure?

[Starcomet]

Cool. Although it's a bit strange then that you also said that "the two are mutually exclusive" while referring to agnosticism and atheism.

They most certainly aren't. If anything, one is a qualifier of the other.

In my mind, an agnostic is someone who has no position on the matter pertaining to the existence of a deity(s). They neither confirm nor deny the existence of such a thing and refuse to speculate or take a position as it is unimportant till evidence can show otherwise. Basically a true agnostic would be similar to a secular world government that does not interfere with religion and ignores the question of God.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In my mind, an agnostic is someone who has no position on the matter pertaining to the existence of a deity(s).

From a knowledge perspective. Not from a belief perspective.
(a)gnosticism pertains to knowledge whereas (a)theism pertains to beliefs.


So as an agnostic atheist, I don't claim to know if god(s) exists or not while I don't hold positive beliefs concerning claims about god(s). Note that this is also not the same as positively believing the opposite claim.

My atheism is defined by a very simple answer to a very simple question.
That question is "do you believe a god exists?"
And the answer is "no".

No more, no less.

And I think we've drifted enough off topic now.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

If you reread my post, you'll see that I didn't use the word "prove", nore did I use the word "certainty".

What I said was that science demonstrably works. If you build airplanes using science, they fly.

What science does is zero-in on the truth.
Newtonian physics was "wrong", sure. But "less wrong" then previous models.
I'm sure Einsteinian physics is "wrong" to an extent as well, but again "less wrong" then Newtonian physics.

And both are a lot more correct then physics models that aren't produced by scientific inquiry.

So yes, I don't see any issue with pointing at that impeccable track record and concluding that science is our best method to find out how stuff works and getting every more accurate answers.

Curiouser and Curiouser...
Maybe you should start investigating your own beliefs, and hunt some of your own held dogmas till their natural conclusion, quibbling over terms aside. For this is not about certainty, but your statement of 'less wrong', as if you could judge if you are closer or further from 'truth'.

I just told you that Science has taken many a wrong turning. Think of Aristotlean ideas of the Efficient cause and nutritive soul in Biology, for instance. Swopping a few terms for more modern nomenclature like phenotype or genetic code, and Aristotle reads like a biology textbook. Some say tongue-in-cheek that he should be granted the honour of a posthumous Nobel, if it was granted posthumously, for describing DNA. So scholastic Aristolean Natural Philosophers were closer to what we consider 'correct' in 1300 than in the 18th century.
Or Galenic Medicine. Galen was a great Empiricist, but many of his ideas; such as ebb and flow of blood, or pneuma in nerves; held erroneous sway for a thousand years. So logikoi physicians of the third century were closer to what we believe in many respects, than those up till the 17th. And this was Empirical-based medicine to boot!

It is difficult to know you are making a mistake while you are doing so. So relativity theory might be further from the 'truth' than newtonian mechanics. We simply have no way of knowing. Radical missteps have been made in Science before, and what had been set aside, taken up once more (again atomic theory springs to mind). Also usefulness is no criterion to judge its 'correctness' by, or whatever term you would prefer - phlogiston gave us the discovery of many elements and substances, like Oxygen or Carbondioxide, so was an 'improvement' on chemistry before it on what it could demonstrate and find out - yet again, had been an actual red herring.
Or Lord Kelvin declaring heavier than air flight impossible scientifically, just prior to the first aeroplane. Or people laughing at attempts of early rocketry for ignoring what was thought 'basic science'.

I have no problem with scientific enquiry, and agree it is a very useful model of naturalistic investigation. But to say any thing we hold is necessarily 'less wrong' today or that cumulative Science 'zeroes in on truth' is clearly historically inaccurate and frankly an unscientific statement. Someone who said so in 1900 or 1800 or 1700 etc. would have demonstratably been wrong in many fields, if we take our modern set of scientific beliefs as the standard to measure by. This is simply Presentism, that we are necessarily closer to the truth just because it is what we currently think is so, and is a silly fallacy every age falls into. That is why Scientific history should be taught more widely, so that people don't fall in this puerile trap that we necessarily know more or better than our fathers - history is not kind to such ideas, and as people laugh at the idiocy of the past, the future will laugh at ours. There is simply no way of knowing that we are more correct at all, to reiterate, so best disabuse yourself of such absolutist faith in such a mistaken idea of what Scientific progress entails - for that is when 'real progress' (or at least fruitful new modes of enquiry) arise, when the sacred cows of old Scientific Orthodoxy get slaughtered. This is what Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Mendell, Leeuwenhoek, Lavousier, and other luminaries did. It is stultifying to believe so firmly in this paradigm of 'progressive improvement of Science' and that we are supposedly closer to the truth today, when history records repeated false starts and back-to-the-drawing-board, and such dogmatic insistence crushes free inquiry. In the medical field, you'd see this in spades with Evidence-Based Medicine, which adopts quite a totalitarian structure that supresses many deductive theories, when forgotten that it is a heuristic technique, instead treated as gospel of what is fact. Such thinking is very dangerous and reeks of something akin to mediaeval scholasticism. Such unscientific insistence made a priori, is where Science goes to die.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Curiouser and Curiouser...
Maybe you should start investigating your own beliefs, and hunt some of your own held dogmas till their natural conclusion, quibbling over terms aside. For this is not about certainty, but your statement of 'less wrong', as if you could judge if you are closer or further from 'truth'.

How does one check if a thing is accurate or not?
Let's first define what "true/accurate" means...
I'ld say that "true/accurate" is, that which reflects reality.

How does one check if a statement / claim / idea reflects reality?
You test it either through experiment or through practical application.

So, we can conclude that relativity is pretty accurate, because GPS is able to pinpoint your position with a small margin of error.

We can conclude that aerodynamics is pretty accurate, because planes fly.

We can conclude that atomic theory is pretty accurate, because nukes explode.

Etc.

If you disagree with this, then I'm going to have to ask you what your alternative is in terms of how to check of reflective of actual reality a claim is.

I just told you that Science has taken many a wrong turning. Think of Aristotlean ideas of the Efficient cause and nutritive soul in Biology, for instance.
Swopping a few terms for more modern nomenclature like phenotype or genetic code, and Aristotle reads like a biology textbook. Some say tongue-in-cheek that he should be granted the honour of a posthumous Nobel, if it was granted posthumously, for describing DNA. So scholastic Aristolean Natural Philosophers were closer to what we consider 'correct' in 1300 than in the 18th century.
Or Galenic Medicine. Galen was a great Empiricist, but many of his ideas; such as ebb and flow of blood, or pneuma in nerves; held erroneous sway for a thousand years. So logikoi physicians of the third century were closer to what we believe in many respects, than those up till the 17th. And this was Empirical-based medicine to boot!

So, what's your point?
That we should put any trust in the scientific method?

Also, standardized science (as in the scientific method) is only a couple centuries old. As in 2 or 3.

It is difficult to know you are making a mistake while you are doing so.

Especially if you don't bother to test your ideas properly.

So relativity theory might be further from the 'truth' than newtonian mechanics. We simply have no way of knowing

Except that we do. If you build GPS systems based on only Newtonian mechanics, then it won't work. It will be off by several miles. Correct for relativistic effects and suddenly it works.

Radical missteps have been made in Science before

And ironically, it is through more science that such missteps are discovered.

, and what had been set aside, taken up once more (again atomic theory springs to mind). Also usefulness is no criterion to judge its 'correctness' by, or whatever term you would prefer - phlogiston gave us the discovery of many elements and substances, like Oxygen or Carbondioxide, so was an 'improvement' on chemistry before it on what it could demonstrate and find out - yet again, had been an actual red herring.
Or Lord Kelvin declaring heavier than air flight impossible scientifically, just prior to the first aeroplane. Or people laughing at attempts of early rocketry for ignoring what was thought 'basic science'.

And again it was more science that corrected it.

I have no problem with scientific enquiry, and agree it is a very useful model of naturalistic investigation. But to say any thing we hold is necessarily 'less wrong' today or that cumulative Science 'zeroes in on truth' is clearly historically inaccurate and frankly an unscientific statement

Clearly it isn't, as per your own examples.

Someone who said so in 1900 or 1800 or 1700 etc. would have demonstratably been wrong in many fields, if we take our modern set of scientific beliefs as the standard to measure by.

"demonstrably". Through science, by any chance?

This is simply Presentism, that we are necessarily closer to the truth just because it is what we currently think is so, and is a silly fallacy every age falls into.

Is it?

So is it your opinion that instead of zero-ing in on the truth, science actually removes us further from the truth?

Note perhaps, at this point, that I never said that science (or perhaps better put: scientists) are flawless. Obviously mistakes happen.

Still doesn't change the fact that science is our best method of answering questions about reality.

That is why Scientific history should be taught more widely, so that people don't fall in this puerile trap that we necessarily know more or better than our fathers - history is not kind to such ideas, and as people laugh at the idiocy of the past, the future will laugh at ours. There is simply no way of knowing that we are more correct at all, to reiterate, so best disabuse yourself of such absolutist faith in such a mistaken idea of what Scientific progress entails - for that is when 'real progress' (or at least fruitful new modes of enquiry) arise, when the sacred cows of old Scientific Orthodoxy get slaughtered. This is what Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Mendell, Leeuwenhoek, Lavousier, and other luminaries did. It is stultifying to believe so firmly in this paradigm of 'progressive improvement of Science' and that we are supposedly closer to the truth today, when history records repeated false starts and back-to-the-drawing-board, and such dogmatic insistence crushes free inquiry. In the medical field, you'd see this in spades with Evidence-Based Medicine, which adopts quite a totalitarian structure that supresses many deductive theories, when forgotten that it is a heuristic technique, instead treated as gospel of what is fact. Such thinking is very dangerous and reeks of something akin to mediaeval scholasticism. Such unscientific insistence made a priori, is where Science goes to die.

I think it's funny how you continously argue against it by citing examples of when scientists were wrong and then correct by more science.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

How does one check if a thing is accurate or not?
Let's first define what "true/accurate" means...
I'ld say that "true/accurate" is, that which reflects reality.

How does one check if a statement / claim / idea reflects reality?
You test it either through experiment or through practical application.

So, we can conclude that relativity is pretty accurate, because GPS is able to pinpoint your position with a small margin of error.

We can conclude that aerodynamics is pretty accurate, because planes fly.

We can conclude that atomic theory is pretty accurate, because nukes explode.

Etc.

If you disagree with this, then I'm going to have to ask you what your alternative is in terms of how to check of reflective of actual reality a claim is.

As I said before, this is nothing but a silly petitio principii. A theory based on our observations, is not thus proved by those same observations. You have to assume validity of Empiricism itself to do so, or that it necessarily accords to 'reality'. As I said, Roman aquaducts work, or Alchemists could get silver from lead, but neither of those thus proved Roman theories of pressure or Alchemy. So no, nukes exploding or planes flying do not show those theories accurate, just that they aren't necessarily wrong per se.

So, what's your point?
That we should put any trust in the scientific method?

Also, standardized science (as in the scientific method) is only a couple centuries old. As in 2 or 3.

Nonsense. Scientific Method and standardised Science was invented in the 12th century by Roger Bacon and Grosseteste - look it up.

Especially if you don't bother to test your ideas properly.



Except that we do. If you build GPS systems based on only Newtonian mechanics, then it won't work. It will be off by several miles. Correct for relativistic effects and suddenly it works.




And ironically, it is through more science that such missteps are discovered.




And again it was more science that corrected it.



Clearly it isn't, as per your own examples.



"demonstrably". Through science, by any chance?




Is it?

So is it your opinion that instead of zero-ing in on the truth, science actually removes us further from the truth?

Note perhaps, at this point, that I never said that science (or perhaps better put: scientists) are flawless. Obviously mistakes happen.

Still doesn't change the fact that science is our best method of answering questions about reality.




I think it's funny how you continously argue against it by citing examples of when scientists were wrong and then correct by more science.

Your missing my entire point. You can't thus assume that we aren't blundering into the thickets, because we think we have done so in the past. Likewise, what we believed in the past has often been rejected and then confirmed again, etc. So to believe we are necessarily 'zero-ing on the truth' is absurd, for what we thought 50 years ago or 100 years ago might have been. Ideas abandoned wholesale were then rediscovered under different terms, like genotype and Aristotlean biology.
The fact that Science self-corrects supports my contention, for fundamental orthodoxies get challenged. Even measured things considered definite, like length or time, are eventually re-evaluated. Nothing is taken for granted, everything is investigated, even if it flagrantly looks confirmed, that trains move or bombs explode. There is scepticism of the entirety at its heart.
What you ascribe to is not Science, but pseudo-science. I am the one defending Scientific Method here, against a donkey merely disguising itself in its trappings; or an absolutist wolf hiding in its sheepskin. This is the same fallacious thinking that gave us Communist dialectic or the precepts of racialism.

Good day to you.

 

[DogmaHunter]

As I said before, this is nothing but a silly petitio principii. A theory based on our observations, is not thus proved by those same observations.

Firstly, theories are never proven. Only supported.
Secondly, not the same observations. But rather more observations. Preferably, by prediction.

You have to assume validity of Empiricism itself to do so, or that it necessarily accords to 'reality'

I don't "assume" the validity of empricism. I conclude it. I base it on its track record.
Empiricism demonstrably works. It is through empirical inquiry that we advance in our knowledge about reality. It's how we succeeded in building machines of several tons that nonetheless are capable of flying and even escaping earth's gravity.

Do you know of a better method?

As I said, Roman aquaducts work, or Alchemists could get silver from lead, but neither of those thus proved Roman theories of pressure or Alchemy. So no, nukes exploding or planes flying do not show those theories accurate, just that they aren't necessarily wrong per se.

They support the theories.

Your missing my entire point. You can't thus assume that we aren't blundering into the thickets, because we think we have done so in the past. Likewise, what we believed in the past has often been rejected and then confirmed again, etc. So to believe we are necessarily 'zero-ing on the truth' is absurd, for what we thought 50 years ago or 100 years ago might have been. Ideas abandoned wholesale were then rediscovered under different terms, like genotype and Aristotlean biology.

So, in your opinion, what does scientific advancement mean?
You don't think the general arrow of scientific advancement points to ever-more accurate models of reality - regardless of potential bumps or sidetracks along the way?

I really wonder how you can say such with a straight face while living in the digital information age where the idea of colonies on Mars aren't actually that far fetched... (if that is indeed what you are saying... and if it isn't, then what are you saying??)

The fact that Science self-corrects supports my contention, for fundamental orthodoxies get challenged. Even measured things considered definite, like length or time, are eventually re-evaluated. Nothing is taken for granted, everything is investigated, even if it flagrantly looks confirmed, that trains move or bombs explode. There is scepticism of the entirety at its heart.

Well, yes....... and it is exactly thanks to that practice that we continously zero-in on the truth.

What you ascribe to is not Science, but pseudo-science.

lol, owkay.

No idea what you mean by that though...

I am the one defending Scientific Method here, against a donkey merely disguising itself in its trappings; or an absolutist wolf hiding in its sheepskin. This is the same fallacious thinking that gave us Communist dialectic or the precepts of racialism.

Good day to you.

Defending the scientific method by insinuating that the scientific method doesn't lead to a better understanding of reality.

Owkay then.

Donkey.

 

[cloudyday2]

Reminds me of something Sam Harris said once: "We can say that mormonism is less likely then christianity, since it is just christianity with some additional and rather silly ideas…"

Yeah, I was trying to imagine if there might be cases where adding beliefs makes the existing beliefs more plausible.

Like the space shuttle has hundreds of thousands of parts with various mean times between failure. In some cases I suppose that adding an additional part might give redundancy and actually increase the overall MTBF. So it could be similar with religious systems?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yeah, I was trying to imagine if there might be cases where adding beliefs makes the existing beliefs more plausible.

I disagree that piling on beliefs, changes anything about the credibility of the original beliefs.
The new beliefs are less likely then the original ones, that is true.

For the simple reason that the most plausible is always the one with the least assumptions.
Adding beliefs, would be addings assumptions.

Like the space shuttle has hundreds of thousands of parts with various mean times between failure. In some cases I suppose that adding an additional part might give redundancy and actually increase the overall MTBF. So it could be similar with religious systems?

That's about what works. Or perhaps better put: what continues to work.
Not about what is true or accurate.

I don't think that's a proper analogy

 

[cloudyday2]

That's about what works. Or perhaps better put: what continues to work.
Not about what is true or accurate.

I don't think that's a proper analogy

Maybe not as improper as it might seem at first. We humans can't know what is true and accurate and the data we are attempting to rationalize is always changing as time flows onward. That little tidbit in Timothy about women keeping their mouths shut in church and saving their questions for their husbands at home is like a component that worked in the past but has developed dangerous cracks due to metal fatigue.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Maybe not as improper as it might seem at first. We humans can't know what is true and accurate and the data we are attempting to rationalize is always changing as time flows onward. That little tidbit in Timothy about women keeping their mouths shut in church and saving their questions for their husbands at home is like a component that worked in the past but has developed dangerous cracks due to metal fatigue.

........................it can also be that the way in which people have attempted to handle the "women know your place" passages in the New Testament come by not having access to additional historical contexts that play into the actual meaning that was loaded into Paul's messages in the first place. In other words, somewhere along the way, Paul's original meaning was lost on person's outside of the 1st century because his writing became an extract from the past, detached from its original historical contexts. For more on this, see Kroeger and Kroeger's book, I Suffer Not a Woman.

 

[cloudyday2]

........................it can also be that the way in which people have attempted to handle the "women know your place" passages in the New Testament come by not having access to additional historical contexts that play into the actual meaning that was loaded into Paul's messages in the first place. In other words, somewhere along the way, Paul's original meaning was lost on person's outside of the 1st century because his writing became an extract from the past, detached from its original historical contexts. For more on this, see Kroeger and Kroeger's book, I Suffer Not a Woman.

Hmmmm. I guess I'm pretty skeptical that anybody could turn that verse into something acceptable in the modern world, but I know where there is a will there is a way.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hmmmm. I guess I'm pretty skeptical that anybody could turn that verse into something acceptable in the modern world, but I know where there is a will there is a way.

And sometimes, where there's a rail, there's a train ...

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Firstly, theories are never proven. Only supported.
Secondly, not the same observations. But rather more observations. Preferably, by prediction.

Again quibbling on terms though, but mea culpa. Yes, supported.

The problem here is you would support theories by things derived from those theories. You say bombs that work or planes flying, support theories - but they were made or designed based on observations utilised to make them. So these are examples of the 'same observations' merely repeated, not more observations. You are being inconsistent.

Further, if I use astrological tables to investigate the position of the stars at my birth, I'd have found my birth-sign. Further I can predict vague enough traits associated with certain heavenly bodies that can then be applied to my life, creating a semblance or appearance of accuracy. Does this support Astrology? Didn't its predictions thus bear out as a system?

But anyway, yes that is how Empiricism functions, via observations. You still have not shown it valid therefore though. This is still a petitio principii, that a system reinforces itself by its own rules. For more observations does not really show anything new to something already based on taking observations - you aren't supporting the method, merely applying it further. Further observation merely refines the argument, but doesn't show its validity.

I don't "assume" the validity of empricism. I conclude it. I base it on its track record.
Empiricism demonstrably works. It is through empirical inquiry that we advance in our knowledge about reality. It's how we succeeded in building machines of several tons that nonetheless are capable of flying and even escaping earth's gravity.

Do you know of a better method?

Petitio Principii again. You must assume it valid to conclude it is, if you are doing so by Empirical means.

You are anyway assuming reality equates to materialism alone here, confusing ontological naturalism to methodological naturalism, and seeming to confuse Scientific Method with all of Epistemological investigation itself. All of this is again a Petitio Principii. This is quite a litany of, almost creedal, things that need to be taken solely on faith. It reminds me of the fundamentalist saying that I know the holy books are true because they say they are.

They support the theories.

Yes, they do. Exactly. They support theories we think wrong. It is simply hubris to think our theories today aren't of similar ilk; and we can somehow conclude our supports thus make our theories 'closer to truth' than their supports made theirs.

As I said, Galenic physiology is thought wrong, but it could succesfully treat some diseases and make succesful predictions (like arterial wave form). So it was better supported than the logikoi classical physicians it replaced - yet from our perspective a 'step away from truth', if we conclude our modern beliefs to be closer. It held sway for a thousand years, but clearly shows the lie that what is better supported is necessarily 'closer to truth' or that what can make succesful material predictions necessarily is either.

So, in your opinion, what does scientific advancement mean?
You don't think the general arrow of scientific advancement points to ever-more accurate models of reality - regardless of potential bumps or sidetracks along the way?

I really wonder how you can say such with a straight face while living in the digital information age where the idea of colonies on Mars aren't actually that far fetched... (if that is indeed what you are saying... and if it isn't, then what are you saying??)

No, what I am saying is Science doesn't presume what is reality, nor what is truth.

It uses methodological naturalism to investigate the natural world, hence its old name of Natural Philosophy. It constructs models seeking to understand the natural world, which it is continually building upon and making more coherent. At no point does it assume those models are anything but that - abstract models. If the entirety of it becomes incoherent or unsound, it will be discarded. To assume they are 'ever more accurate models of reality' is gross hubris and assumption, especially in light thereof that we had rejected many such well-developed models in the past and readopted previously discarded ones.

Well, yes....... and it is exactly thanks to that practice that we continously zero-in on the truth.

I don't think you fully grasp how Science actually works. At risk of seeming condescending, you make an hypothesis and test against it, seeking to falsify the same. This is then used to make new Hypotheses and the cycle repeats. It is however not a linear process. Many hypotheses are proferred, sometimes contradictory, that may pass current attempts at falsification. Other times new evidence unravels an hypothesis upon which hundreds of others were based, but it is not immediately apparent, as that hypothesis is nested deep within a whole collection of hypotheses considered plausible and scientific dogma (think of how quantum theory unravels so much as a quick example). It is a flawed human construct, with multiple intermeshed hypotheses that don't necessarily work with one another (quantum theory and relativity theory being incongruent for instance, hence the need for a theory of Everything). So it doesn't 'zero in on truth', but tries to construct a coherent and valid model based on empiric evidence, with varying degrees of success; but to assume this equates to truth, you are seriously overstepping the boundaries of Scientific Method and undermining its philosophical undercurrent of sceptical inquiry. It is because it is free to doubt, to change its mind, to go back on itself, to discard and pick up again, that it is so useful, durable and succesful. To presume cumulative advancement toward, and that present knowledge is closer to, some unknown endpoint of Truth, is simply fallacious and unscientific.

This is why what you describe is pseudo-science, something masquerading as if Scientific. It goes against the very writ of Scientific Method, which is built upon scepticism, even and especially of itself, that anything can truly be known with certainty. Scientific Method is just that - a method, a practical application of radical scepticism to assess claims. Not some system to determine truth, but a system to look for falsehood, so that amongst what remains, valence can be drawn based on current knowledge. The very structure of Science precludes ever reaching something 'true' and this includes determining if something is truly false. That is simply not how it works.

Defending the scientific method by insinuating that the scientific method doesn't lead to a better understanding of reality.

Owkay then.

Donkey.

Yes. I am defending it against ignorance of what it really is. It is about garnering a better understanding, but not about presuming what is reality though. Again, Methodological Naturalism as opposed to the Ontological variety.
You did something very similar in the past if I recall, where you misrepresented and misunderstood Occam's razor - another mediaeval philosophic invention. As that discussion ultimately went nowhere, I'd be a fool to repeat futile efforts here further too. I'd strongly suggest you read up on these things though, for the pseudoscientific worldview you espouse is profoundly stultifying to Scientific progress. But you can lead a horse to water, you can't make it drink.

I am done with this discussion. I bid you good day.

 

[cloudyday2]

And sometimes, where there's a rail, there's a train ...

And sometimes there isn't

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And sometimes there isn't

...my point is that it is usually important to "look into" the possibility that there could be a "train of thought" that is as yet unaccounted for; don't just blindly surge ahead over the tracks without checking in multiple directions first. Don't assume that other people's explanations, even new ones, only amount to there being "a will and a way."

 

[cloudyday2]

...my point is that it is usually important to "look into" the possibility that there could be a "train of thought" that is as yet unaccounted for; don't just blindly surge ahead over the tracks without checking in multiple directions first. Don't assume that other people's explanations, even new ones, only amount to there being "a will and a way."

So can you summarize the view of the authors of that book? I guess I'm perfectly comfortable with the standard hypothesis that the Pastorals were forged by a misogynistic and greedy early Christian cleric in the second century. The round peg seems to fit nicely in the round hole, so I have little motivation to try the square peg.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So can you summarize the view of the authors of that book? I guess I'm perfectly comfortable with the standard hypothesis that the Pastorals were forged by a misogynistic and greedy early Christian cleric in the second century. The round peg seems to fit nicely in the round hole, so I have little motivation to try the square peg.

Sure. Here's a reprise of a summary I wrote a week ago on another post:

In a nutshell, Kroeger & Kroeger's thesis is that Paul was addressing a specific issue dealing with upstart, big-mouth, gnostically oriented women in the church who wanted to usurp the position of men, and that he wasn't laying out some kind of universal (sexist) ruling for inhibiting (or suppressing) ALL women in the church. Just upon the heretical upstarts. So, in essence, he was refuting gnostically tinged ideas that were coming into the church via women who took their cues from outside myths which competed with the biblical message.

https://www.amazon.com/Suffer-Not-W...28385031&sr=1-1&keywords=i+suffer+not+a+woman

 

[cloudyday2]

Sure. Here's a reprise of a summary I wrote a week ago on another post:

In a nutshell, Kroeger & Kroeger's thesis is that Paul was addressing a specific issue dealing with upstart, big-mouth, gnostically oriented women in the church who wanted to usurp the position of men, and that he wasn't laying out some kind of universal (sexist) ruling for inhibiting (or suppressing) ALL women in the church. Just upon the heretical upstarts. So, in essence, he was refuting gnostically tinged ideas that were coming into the church via women who took their cues from outside myths which competed with the biblical message.

So what about the heretical upstart men who might have been wanting to usurp the position of women in the church? Why focus on the women if the problem was gender-neutral as gnosticism must have been?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So what about the heretical upstart men who might have been wanting to usurp the position of women in the church? Why focus on the women if the problem was gender-neutral as gnosticism must have been?

Of course there were upstart men who needed to be corralled, too, but often men were naturally accepted in various societies 2,000 years ago as natural 'leaders.' Not that women couldn't be 'queens' or 'princesses,' occasionally calling the shots, too. However, Paul had already laid out enough theology and moral propriety for Christian men to know when, where, why and how they should treat women. Unfortunately, Paul wasn't the only "religious" game in town in the Mediterranean during the 1st century.

....yeah, that's just it. Kroeger and Kroeger show evidence in their book that some gnostic-type myths existed which, when read by adherents, were said to mean quite specifically that women should literally take the leading privilege in society, or in religion, over men. And so, that's what some of them tried to do, even in the church in places like Ephesus or Corinth [...not surprising that it was the case since we're talking Las Vegas style cities of the time]. So, we're not talking about women who wanted to work "with" men (or husbands), side-by-side, as we see Priscilla doing with Aquila. We're talking about slapping the men around as subservient, as in "she's here to take over; so step back, honey!!!" And it was this push by some upstart women in the church that Paul was attempting to counter.

 

[cloudyday2]

....yeah, that's just it. Kroeger and Kroeger show evidence in their book that some gnostic-type myths existed which, when read by adherents, were said to mean quite specifically that women should literally take the leading privilege in society, or in religion, over men. And so, that's what some of them tried to do, even in the church in places like Ephesus or Corinth [...not surprising that it was the case since we're talking Las Vegas style cities of the time]. So, we're not talking about women who wanted to work "with" men (or husbands), side-by-side, as we see Priscilla doing with Aquila. We're talking about slapping the men around as subservient, as in "she's here to take over; so step back, honey!!!" And it was this push by some upstart women in the church that Paul was attempting to counter.

Artemis was the patron of Ephesus and some have hypothesized that the veneration of the Virgin Mary originated in Ephesus. So that's an interesting idea.