"Pure objectivity" is a myth

[StephenGoranson]

Andrew C. wrote above, in part:
"... my general point is that some people are so committed to a (personal or collective) party line that all specific issues are filtered through this framework. As a result you know what they are going to say, (even on a basically new issue), before you read their contribution. Other people are more flexible, and what they say on a new issue is not foreordained by their party line."

I, SG, agree with what AC wrote there. And, though I cannot speak for AC, as I read it, he may have commented, in part, because his view differed to some degree with what Neil G. wrote.

NG replied to AC above:
"Which is exactly what I said above -- "our belief-systems govern how we select and interpret evidence.""

Well, no, I SG say, not "exactly." Note the verb "govern," as if an individual cannot learn something new that may even change a belief or presupposition or Weltanschauung, etc. Some are more open to new things than others.

[John T]

Neil has repetitively demonstrated on this thread his ultimate goal has nothing to do with Christian Texts and History. He wants you to "feel" that philosophy proves his atheist beliefs are sound in reasoning and that all others are stupid. Somehow, he "feels" that atheism is based on epistemology but his posts prove just the opposite. When in reality he is engaging in pseudo-ethics. That is: Subjective liberals = good. Objective conservatives = evil.

Beware of the snake-oil salesman.

Wet, lather, rinse, and repeat.

[neilgodfrey]

Andrew C. wrote above, in part:
"... my general point is that some people are so committed to a (personal or collective) party line that all specific issues are filtered through this framework. As a result you know what they are going to say, (even on a basically new issue), before you read their contribution. Other people are more flexible, and what they say on a new issue is not foreordained by their party line."

I, SG, agree with what AC wrote there. And, though I cannot speak for AC, as I read it, he may have commented, in part, because his view differed to some degree with what Neil G. wrote.

NG replied to AC above:
"Which is exactly what I said above -- "our belief-systems govern how we select and interpret evidence.""

Well, no, I SG say, not "exactly." Note the verb "govern," as if an individual cannot learn something new that may even change a belief or presupposition or Weltanschauung, etc. Some are more open to new things than others.

Andrew was talking about someone who was predictably stubborn and closed to the view of others - that is, one "governed" by his party line loyalty.

[StephenGoranson]

NG replied to AC above:
"Which is exactly what I said above -- "our belief-systems govern how we select and interpret evidence.""

"Our" and "we" are general terms, not suggesting, say, merely others or some.
If you had written something such as, our belief-systems may often influence, to varying degrees, how we select and interpret evidence,
that might have been more constructive. Also such influence may vary depending on the question at hand, as well as the person addressing it.

In the more limited set, "party lines" here that a few here appear closed to reconsidering include, imo:

a) The claim of proving a negative that Jesus did not exist.
b) The claim that Constantine (or another emperor) basically invented Christianity.
c) The claim that the Torah books were all written all at once.

[neilgodfrey]

NG replied to AC above:
"Which is exactly what I said above -- "our belief-systems govern how we select and interpret evidence.""

"Our" and "we" are general terms, not suggesting, say, merely others or some.
If you had written something such as, our belief-systems may often influence, to varying degrees, how we select and interpret evidence,
that might have been more constructive. Also such influence may vary depending on the question at hand, as well as the person addressing it.

In the more limited set, "party lines" here that a few here appear closed to reconsidering include, imo:

a) The claim of proving a negative that Jesus did not exist.
b) The claim that Constantine (or another emperor) basically invented Christianity.
c) The claim that the Torah books were all written all at once.

You keep missing the point, SG.

I can, however, point to another kind of lack of objectivity: it is one where person A gets a certain idea about person B and imputes into person B a lot of negative qualities and approaches every word they write as an expression of those negative qualities, even misreading those words or missing their point because they have a personal animosity towards that person -- usually based on some form of internet-mind-reading.

I sometimes encounter that, even on this forum, would you believe!

[GakuseiDon]

Biased people can be right and unbiased people can be wrong. Stick to the argument and worry about motives after the argument has been settled.

It's good to see people having their own theories and biases posting here. Leucius Charinus was a pain in the arse a few years ago since he drove every thread into tangents, but he's been okay recently. His view about 4th C Christianity helps keep us honest since it highlights the scarcity of solid evidence for earliest Christianity. Others have their own perspectives which can be thought-provoking when intersecting with one's own, like Giuseppe's and Secret Alias'.

Assigning motives like promoting 'anti-Christian, hate speech and propaganda' does nothing to move any argument forward. We just end up losing good people like Ben C Smith.

[neilgodfrey]

Assigning motives like promoting 'anti-Christian, hate speech and propaganda' does nothing to move any argument forward. We just end up losing good people like Ben C Smith.

That kind of "lack of objectivity" is simply unprofessional behaviour. It is not about the question of "objectivity in research or historical inquiry" that I was speaking about in the OP.

At the time I thought my OP was banal and scarcely needed saying, certainly uncontroversial. I have been pretty much taken aback by the reactions of some of us.

[neilgodfrey]

In the more limited set, "party lines" here that a few here appear closed to reconsidering include, imo:

a) The claim of proving a negative that Jesus did not exist.
b) The claim that Constantine (or another emperor) basically invented Christianity.
c) The claim that the Torah books were all written all at once.

Yup, any thesis that is not according to mainstream views is "not objective" by definition!

SG, the point is that even the mainstream is a "party line" and progress is best made when all "parties" are more self-aware of their preconceptions and assumptions.

[Giuseppe]

In the more limited set, "party lines" here that a few here appear closed to reconsidering include, imo:

a) The claim of proving a negative that Jesus did not exist.

In the Antiquity it was surely hard to prove a negative that king Priamus did not exist.

[John T]

What is the difference between assigning motives and proving motives?

When you quote someone showing their motive, is that not allowed in proving a motive?
In court you don't have to prove a motive but present the logic of one.


Also, why do people assume that conservatism is a "party line". Perhaps Chris can explain why only christian/republicans are fascist and not the LGBQT community?

Do liberals even understand the meaning of fascism? Do they not understand that to falsely label a religious group fascist is an act of evil, hate speech?
How would Chris feel if people on this forum continuously labeled the gay community as pedophiles?
Why doesn't Neil condemn actual left-wing hate speech on this forum?

Why call someone a troll for pointing out the hypocrisy?

Finally, what does this thread have to do with Christian Text and history?

Inquiring minds would like to know.