What is Philosophy?
Is it “unintelligible answers to insoluble problems”? (Henry Adams)
Is a philosopher “a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn’t there”? (Lord Bowen)
Is philosophy “a route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing”? (Ambrose Bierce)
In a recent post a comment was made about how nice it was to have three trained philosophers engaged in making comments.
But is anyone else even paying attention? Does what these trained philosophers say even matter?
Isn’t it true that:
“There is only one thing a philosopher can be relied on to do, and that is to contradict other philosophers.” (William James)
“one cannot conceive of anything so strange and so unbelievable that it has not been said by one philosopher or another.” (Rene Descartes)
“The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as to seem not worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it.” (Bertrand Russell)
Philosopher: “someone who doesn’t know what he is talking about but makes it sound like it’s your fault.”
Can any of our trained philosophers even offer a defense of philosophy beyond “it pays the bills”?
More specifically, what is the value of philosophy for an atheist?
[Changed Ambrose Pierce to Ambrose Bierce. HT: keiths]
George Washington was a legendary figure. It doesn’t imply that there was no real George Washington.
Is the “legend” claim that folks are making just that some of the things attributed to Jesus are legendary? I did not realize that. It seemed to me that Patrick was staking his claim squarely in the “we don’t know if Jesus existed” camp. I haven’t seen a particularly strong challenge coming from your side to that claim.
If the rest of you are just claiming that some of the things attributed to Jesus are legendary I would agree.
It might be interesting to discuss what criteria we use to determine which things are real and which are legendary and see if we are consistent in our approach.
peace
Most people who consider the evidence are in the “we don’t know if Jesus existed” camp. That’s an expression of uncertainty, based on the weakness of the evidence. I agree with that view. Yet I also go with the historicists (there probably was a Jesus) and against the mythicists (it’s all entirely made up). I don’t know Patrick’s position on mythicism vs. historicism. From what walto wrote, I take it that he also goes with historicism.
I’m pretty sure that you have the ability to start a new thread on this.
This is just you equivocating again. You can believe that there was an historical Jesus and still say that there is a Jesus myth or Legend. That kind of thing happens all the time.
And speaking of equivocating. You’ve now claimed that belief in Jesus is both natural and unnatural. You’re really on a roll!
BTW, mung, I’d be interested in hearing whether the expert in Roman crucifixions that you quoted discussed the question of whether every victim died. The long (Shaw considered it endless) novel by George Moore about this ( The Brook Kerith has Jesus nursed back to health by Joseph of Arimathea (a position I believe Moore got from Butler’s book).
I recognize that this theory would make Jesus not just young and strong, but also tougher, more resilient, and having greater regenerative powers than a nearly all of his followers give him credit for. But if we take the, empirical, scientific, forensic stance on this, the first thing to do is find out whether people who were crucified ever lived to tell the tale.
My own sense (and Butler’s) is that we don’t really have to make Jesus into a modern day Wolverine to have him live through that. (Of course, his followers have made him a much bigger deal than Wolverine, without stopping at the Wolverine level…)
Is Joseph Smith legend? Were there really gold tablets? Are native Americans really lost Israelites? Should. We believe because belief has a positive effect on people’s lives?
We have as much reason to believe that there was a historical Jesus as we do to believe there was a historical Socrates. Anyone who says, “we don’t know if there was a historical Jesus or not” should also say, “we don’t know if there was a historical Socrates or not.”
I put it in quote to indicate that I am mentioning the word rather than using it. It is the concept itself that I’m attending to, not how the concept is used. If the use of quotes bothers you because it looks like scare-quotes or ironic quotes, then I’ll use italics for the same function.
In making that claim, I had in mind the thought that one’s faith is a private, individual choice that has no essential connection to where one lives, one’s ethnic background, political affiliations, and so on. This seems very much part of the modern concept of faith, and it is conception that evolved (so far as I know) in Western Europe in the century or so following the Thirty Year’s War.
I therefore find it a bit problematic to use this term when discussing Judaism, whether ancient, medieval, or modern. I also find it a problematic notion to use in discussing Christianity prior to the 17th century.
The question “is medieval Judaism a faith?” is, to me, much like “was Alcibiades a homosexual?” In some sense, yes: Alcibiades preferred sexual encounters with men over those with women. But the social category of “homosexuality” is a 19th century invention, and in fact originally a medical concept that was invented in a time when interest in developing a rigorous science of human motivation and behavior was on the rise. (This is why it was a big deal when the American Psychiatric Association ruled that homosexuality is not a mental illness — because the concept of homosexuality was, originally a mental illness.)
The ancient Greeks didn’t have this concept, or an empirical science of motivation and behavior, and in fact the social conventions governing male-male sex in ancient Greece were quite different from anything we now have. The social conventions were not just “normal” — being the adolescent lover of an older man was considered a normal part of education and socialization — but also strictly enforced. And of course the older men who engaged in these relationships also had wives and children.
So, was Alcibiades a homosexual? Yes and no. Is Judaism a faith? Yes and no.
Classic! I usually don’t use ‘quote in reply’, but this one was worth it.
That sounds like KN, along with his other tangled and muddled ideologies.
This coming from the same human being who recently accused almost everyone at TAZ (specifically his fellow atheists) of ‘not understanding classical theism’?!? To say such a thing now simply reveals delusion, KN, or lack of education, or both. You actually sound like Dawkins on this point; a man who talks with ignorance about theology, religion and faith, without, as U2 sings “knowing what it is if you’ve never had one.”
Atheist Jews are (psycho-philosophically) self-annihilators. There is no reason to be called ‘Jewish’ or to recognise ‘Jewish people’ outside of a theistic framework. It is simply historically meaningless.
Trying to ‘enculturate’ Judaism as a way of removing one’s Creator from their life is a sad desperate situation. Disenchanted KN strikes dissonance again!
A ‘member’ sociologically of congregation, “not in good standing” theologically. Why not go speak to your former Rabbi (assuming he is a real Rabbi, i.e. theistic) and ask if atheist Jews are a stain on Judaism, KN? Are you (still) “a participating member of a Reform Jewish congregation”?
Just a small ways left to go on that atheists’ ‘buy a church’ fundraiser! 😉 Do any atheists here wonder why? http://firstchurchofatheism.org/fundraisers/buy-a-church/
Yada, yada. Concepts are not living things independent of human beings conceptualising (& perceptualising). They don’t procreate & reproduce. They do not ‘evolve’. They change. People change their meanings.
You crutch on such philosophistry, KN. I do wish for you one day to let go and rise, but you seem to prefer to sink deeper and deeper.
Gregory,
Is “TAZ” supposed to be “The Atheist Zone”? The first few times I saw it I keep on thinking of Hakim Bey’s Temporary Autonomous Zone.
I think it’s clear that TSZ is a zone comprised mostly of people who disbelieve in the literal reading of Genesis and who do not believe any sacred text is a reliable guide to history.That makes us atheists in the minds of some. And all atheists are clones of each other. All identical.
Gregory, I am deeply hurt that you inquired about my musical taste and didn’t stick around to pass judgement on it.
If I had said “the concept X developed” instead of “evolved”, would that make a difference?
It should be perfectly obvious that if I were asked, “how did this concept develop at that time?” the right kind of response would be, “subsequent to the Peace of Westphalia, European politicians and intellectuals slowly began to recognize that religious toleration was less costly than religious war . . . ” and so on from there.
This idea that I’m somehow committed to thinking of concepts as having an existence apart from what people say and do is so inconsistent with everything else that I’ve ever said that I can only attribute it to a deliberate, willful desire to misinterpret what I say. (Call this the Principle of Anti-Charity.)
Gregory,
Even God evolves.
Yes. As usual, you didn’t need to write the bluster after that.
No we’re not! We’re all individuals!.
Gregory,
I apologize for the bluster. Clearly there’s some really important difference here that you see and I don’t. What’s the difference, as you see it, between talking about concepts as “evolving” and concepts as “developing”?
On a separate note: I read the Wikipedia article on Solovyov. His criticism of positivism, as described there, sounded very similar to Bergson’s criticism. Have you noticed this? Is there any evidence of relation between them — did either one read the other?
I take it that Gregory hasn’t yet grokked the notion of the “food Jew.” http://www.oychicago.com/article.aspx?id=780&blogid=132
He’s young yet, though. And even though he finds it difficult to learn anything, I don’t make it completely impossible–just highly unlikely.
So, kill me–I’m an optimist!
fifthmonarchyman,
That’s vague to the point of uselessness. What, exactly, do you mean when you say “Jesus is lord”? What characteristics do you ascribed to your concept of Jesus that distinguish it from a not-lord? What, if any, entailments follow from being “lord”?
That’s not what I asked for, although it is what I expected when I asked. I must say I’m a bit disappointed that you went as low as the HuffPo for your reference, though.
I am asking for the objective, empirical evidence that an individual matching the description of the Jesus of the New Testament actually existed. What I find interesting about the mythicist position is not whether it is right or wrong, but how difficult it is for even extremely knowledgeable historians of the period to refute it. There is literally no evidence of Jesus’ existence from the time he supposedly lived. It is fascinating to me that a figure that so many people claim to know intimately cannot be conclusively demonstrated to have even existed.
The reason I brought up this particular topic, among many others I could have chosen, is that it demonstrates the lack of objective, empirical evidence you have for your beliefs. Pointing at the consensus of biblical scholars, most of whom are theists, doesn’t meet the level of evidence you claimed to have.
Got anything better?
I don’t see any actual evidence on that site. Given that there is no contemporary evidence for even his existence, that’s not surprising.
In fact, I don’t believe you can provide objective, empirical evidence for any of the major claims made in the (contradictory) gospels. Please do feel free to surprise me.
You need to follow the rest of that thread. There’s nothing in that argument that leads to the Abrahamic god or Jesus. It’s not even a convincing argument for a first mover, without some assumptions about pre-big bang physics.
Most importantly, that’s not objective, empirical evidence. It’s just a futile attempt to define your god into existence. As I noted before, if you had real evidence, that kind of rhetoric would be unnecessary.
Now try it but with providing the objective, empirical evidence you
claimed to have. That’s much harder.
No need to move goalposts when you haven’t even come onto the field.
Patrick, to fifth:
The HuffPo sucks, but Ehrman doesn’t.
fifth,
Do you even acknowledge that the gospels are contradictory?
fifthmonarchyman,
Your claim is simply wrong. I lack belief in gods because I’ve never seen evidence of any, including the Christian god I was taught about growing up.
If you provide more specific details about your god, including objective, empirical evidence for its existence, I’ll take it seriously. Until then, it’s got the same going for it as the thousands of other gods humans have invented — nothing.
fifthmonarchyman,
How convenient. It’s never the fault of your arguments, it’s always the evil of the unbelievers.
If I were designing a religion, I’d definitely include a meme like that one.
fifthmonarchyman,
Legend doesn’t imply non-existence, it just recognizes that legendary stories can accrete to both historical and ahistorical individuals.
It’s only been 38 years since Elvis died, and there are reports of him being seen in a number of places. It wouldn’t surprise me for a cult of Diana to arise.
The synoptic gospels were written much longer after the supposed facts than that, by non-eyewitnesses, in an age that respected accurate reporting less than HuffPo or Gawker. Then they were subject to repeated political selection processes and enthusiastic scribes. You don’t suppose a legend or two might have made its way in?
Neil Rickert,
I’m in the “If he existed, he probably wasn’t anything like what his followers think he was” camp.
I’m also in the “I find it highly amusing to watch the way the believers behave when they find out just how weak the evidence for their messiah’s existence really is” camp.
Yes, I’ll go with that, too.
I’m in the camp that the people who eventually wrote stuff down were not even followers.
And if Christianity isn’t cribbed from Mithraism, why the rush to destroy all traces of the older religion?
A similar question could be asked of Judaism.
That is simply incorrect and reflects an understanding that is well out of date and discredited long ago.
Even the Gospel with the most theological development (The Gospel of John) was in wide circulation not much after the turn of the century. that is a little over 50 years after the events in question. Most secular scholars would place Mark at somewhere around CE 70. That is just a little over 35 years after the death of Jesus.
We have a corpus of several books written by one of the eyewitness of the resurrection dealing extensively with the implications of that event. The first of which was written less than 25 after the crucifixion.
This is all well within the lifetime of Jesus’ companions in fact these books give evidence of an ongoing relationship between the author and those companions .
none of this is at all controversial,
We have an intact creed detailing the facts of the resurrection that dates to about 5 years after it happened
We have good reason to believe that the gospel of John was indeed written by an eyewitness.
check it out
This is all up to date rigorous mainstream scholarship by respected historians in secular institutions it’s not some fundamentalist tome.
That you are seemingly unaware of it is yet more evidence that you have rejected a straw-man
peace
I’m not saying that you will find any of this convincing in fact I’m sure you will not but any honest appraisal would conclude that I have at least some evidence for my beliefs.
That you would continue to claim that I believe these things “without or in spite of the evidence” says a lot more about you than it does about me
peace
and the evidence you have for this is????
If I claimed that Socrates was actually totally different than what his followers recorded but had nothing to support my claim folks would call me a conspiracy nut and probably laugh in derision
Why should your claim be treated any more seriously than that ?
peace
I have absolutely no desire to start a thread here on a philosophical topic. However You can expect one pretty soon when share my detection tool
peace
If you mostly kept it to yourself, and didn’t go out of your way to persuade other people, why would anybody care?
For sure, I’m not going to make a big deal over what people say about Socrates.
I agree no one would care in that case but that is not at what is happening here.
You guys are presenting your conspiracy theory as the rational choice and the mainstream understanding as some how a belief with out or in spite of evidence.
That is the point. It’s not me who is out to persuade here it is you and your position is simply not viable. It’s a conspiracy theory
peace
petrushka,
And we shouldn’t forget the Gnostics, much as the Church would like us to. Can’t have people running around claiming that Jesus was pure spirit. People might get the idea he never really existed.
fifthmonarchyman,
No, we don’t. If you think otherwise, provide your evidence.
fifthmonarchyman,
No, we do not. You have wishful thinking without objective, empirical evidence.
Have you read the Gnostics? These documents were written hundreds of years removed from the events in question. You apparently would give them more credence than writings in the life time of the witnesses reflecting the cultural environment of first century Palestine.
That is just silly thinking
Peace
fifthmonarchyman,
That’s not accurate. It’s hard to read the Gnostics because they were purged by the early church. They were active enough in the second century to be suppressed. That’s not “hundreds of years removed”.
fifthmonarchyman,
No, I do not conclude that. You claimed to have objective, empirical evidence. You have presented none. You have also failed to explain what you mean by “Jesus is lord.”
What conspiracy theory?
It’s just a fact that stories get embellished over time. That’s not a conspiracy theory.
please define objective empirical evidence.
Because I checked and the evidence I provided meets the criteria found in Websters
Yes I did you must have missed it. You might go back and check
peace
There is no “over time” as I pointed out earlier we have an account that goes back to within 3 years. and whole books that date to within a few decades of the event
In fact the argument has been put forward by mainstream scholars that the resurrection Creed I mentioned goes back to within a few months of the event
If you reject this sort of contemporaneous account for a supposed alternate one that left absolutely no trace in the historical record I’m not sure how we could call it anything else but a conspiracy theory
peace
This is just hilarious, You do know that the church was a persecuted minority with no political power for the first 3 centurys. It would be impossible for them to have “suppress” anyone before then.
It amazing the limits a conspiracy buff will go to preserve their pet theory.
peace
I just read about something today called religious fictionalism that seems to apply.
We sequester juries because we are concerned that juror’s memories of the case might be altered over only a few days of exposure to other source of information.
Eyewitness testimony is very unreliable. And there’s plenty of research showing this (from psychology).
Note that I am not trying to get you to change what you believe. I’m just pointing out why others are not as persuaded.
If you deny that Jesus actually existed then there is no reason you should be taken seriously. Can you give us a list of major historical figures who lived and or died in the first century who you do believe actually existed?
Just wondering. Do you also deny that Peter and Paul existed?
I think you mean to say “Eyewitness testimony is not infallible” the fact is certain kinds of eyewitness testimony is quite reliable. Details might be lost but the gist of life changing events are not generally forgotten.
Do you actually think an eyewitness could embellish an event to such an extent that a horrible death becomes a triumphant resurrection in a matter of months?
Are you honestly trying to say that this is the sober rational appraisal of the totality of evidence we have ?
No need to try and explain why others are not persuaded. As you have demonstrated it has very little to do with the actual evidence and much more to do with it’s implications.
What’s funny is that not only are folks on that side of the fence not persuaded but they want to pretend that their position is the one that is justified by the evidence.
peace
LoL. Yes, you reserve your skepticism for special occasions. Good for you.
fifth made a general sweeping comment about atheists that got [almost] everyone up in arms. Since then it’s been an interesting display of people who objected to what he said trying to demonstrate that he was right. Now that’s irony!
Wow. You can’t even manage to get this right. Some critic you turn out to be. Yet somehow you manage to find in Gnosticism support for your belief that Jesus never actually existed? I’d sure like to know how that works.
Right. It is very reliable. So reliable, in fact, that people have been convicted of crimes on the basis of this reliable testimony, held in prison for many years, and then exonerated because DNA evidence proved them not guilty.
There is a whole area of study, named “False Memory Syndrome.”
Relatively recent cases of satanic ritual abuse certainly suggest that this is possible.