How "complex and sophisticated" is the No-HJ argument - and is that a good thing?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Bernard Muller
Posts: 3242
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: How "complex and sophisticated" is the No-HJ argument - and is that a good thing?

Post by Bernard Muller » Mon Feb 11, 2019 12:59 pm

I think NO-HJ believers should apply the same amount of skepticism to their various theories as they do for critical "historicists" about HJ and the very beginning of Christianity. If they just do that, NO-HJ people would destroy their own theories very quickly even if they apply lot less criticism than they do about the existence of HJ.

This is what one of my readers wrote to me lately about Carrier & his theories:
* "Carrier, like all mythicists in my humble opinion, really finagles a lot ridiculous things to get to his point. To me it's mind boggling how he could have success with his theories. Not to mention, I've seen his comments to you on some of his articles, and he is rude and an egomaniac."

Cordially Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 5370
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: How "complex and sophisticated" is the No-HJ argument - and is that a good thing?

Post by Peter Kirby » Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:31 pm

Irish1975 wrote:I'm not sure what other point of substance or logic is here.
This misreads the post. I didn’t even make the “point” that you suggested that I might have been making.

This topic has been hashed, rehashed, and heated over. Sometimes I will find something new to add & it would be clear that is what I am doing. Not in this thread.

The OP is for the reader that is somewhat familiar with the issues and is able to use their critical thinking skills to analyze speculations like the ones in the blog post and comments.

I understand that in some places it’s called “taking the piss.”

Some “points of substance” are touched on, and reiterated by those who picked up on them like Andrew Criddle and Joe Wallack and Bertie and Bernard Muller, but I am not really taking pains above to persuade those who haven’t already figured them out.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown

User avatar
Irish1975
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am

Re: How "complex and sophisticated" is the No-HJ argument - and is that a good thing?

Post by Irish1975 » Mon Feb 11, 2019 10:42 pm

Peter Kirby wrote:
Mon Feb 11, 2019 4:31 pm
Irish1975 wrote:I'm not sure what other point of substance or logic is here.
This misreads the post. I didn’t even make the “point” that you suggested that I might have been making.

This topic has been hashed, rehashed, and heated over. Sometimes I will find something new to add & it would be clear that is what I am doing. Not in this thread.

The OP is for the reader that is somewhat familiar with the issues and is able to use their critical thinking skills to analyze speculations like the ones in the blog post and comments.

I understand that in some places it’s called “taking the piss.”

Some “points of substance” are touched on, and reiterated by those who picked up on them like Andrew Criddle and Joe Wallack and Bertie and Bernard Muller, but I am not really taking pains above to persuade those who haven’t already figured them out.
Now that's sophisticated.
"taking the piss": making fun of something or someone (Urban Dictionary)

Paul the Uncertain
Posts: 320
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:25 am
Contact:

Re: How "complex and sophisticated" is the No-HJ argument - and is that a good thing?

Post by Paul the Uncertain » Mon Feb 11, 2019 11:20 pm

@Peter Kirby

Yes, points of substance. And yet, the subject blog post marks an advance in Godfrey's sophistication in managing uncertain reasoning. That remains a commendable thing.

A chief difficulty with a heuristic of obviousness is its vulnerability to being gamed and exploited. The evidence of Jesus available to us is sparse, some of it is censored and altered, and the bulk of it has been instituitonally cherry-picked. If a heuristic of not-so-fast is ever warranted, then it is warranted in this problem.

Giuseppe
Posts: 5793
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: How "complex and sophisticated" is the No-HJ argument - and is that a good thing?

Post by Giuseppe » Tue Feb 12, 2019 4:27 am

Peter Kirby wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 11:18 pm


What's odd about this, though, is that skepticism is not complex and not sophisticated. It's a very simple thing. We either have evidence that overcomes our doubt, to various degrees, or we don't.
it seems that really you - Neil and Peter - agree to agree. Neil says the same identical thing in a more recent post (by quoting a scholar):

The most basic laws of historical evidence are very straightforward.

Richard Carrier seems to repeat the same point, in another context:
That’s how background evidence conditions the prior. You can’t gainsay this by ignoring all this background knowledge and what it entails. No matter how much your intuition rages against the evidence, your intuition has to go hump. The evidence is king.

(my bold)

This is very similar to what Peter defines ''curmudgeonry'' when he writes:
We might be more stringent with the same set of facts, but stringency with the evidence isn't sophistication. It's more akin to curmudgeonry, more like a state of mind or predisposition than any particular font of insight.
Nihil enim in speciem fallacius est quam prava religio. -Liv. xxxix. 16.

Post Reply