Morally Wrong Behavior vs. What the Civil Government Should Prohibit

[seer]

So your position is that you can hold any belief, and it is the responsibility of others to prove them wrong.

Congratulations, Seer, you just made my point. You lack adequate evidence to make the historical claims you are making about Jesus of Nazareth. If you had the evidence, you wouldn't have to sit passively by waiting for others to "prove you wrong." You would be able to defend your historical claims.

I see the game you are playing, Seer. I suspect some part of you knows that historical claims can never be 100% proven or 100% disproved. By shifting the responsibility to the other person to disprove your claims, you are in the position of being able to continually say "see - you didn't disprove it!" and cling to your positions.

It is no skin off my nose what you believe. Believe whatever you will. You simply cannot show that there is any reasonable basis for others to agree with your beliefs. You have chosen a book, arbitrarily decided it should be accepted "on face value," and leveraged the uncertainty of historical methodology to assert your historical claims are rock solid. It's not really much of a position. Realizing I was in that same place is what led me out of theism several decades ago now.

I think I'll leave the rest of this to you. The outcome of this discussion was largely a foregone conclusion. If you have something interesting to say or ask a question I have not already answered, I will probably respond. Otherwise, I think I'll move on.

Again Carp, I never once changed by position, I have been consistent. I can and do take any ancient text at face value until I have good reason not to do so. I have no reason to suspect that the historicity of the New Testament is not generally accurate. They are historical until shown to be otherwise. And taking any text at face value is no more arbitrary than the standards you have offered that is why you have no idea how many independent sources would be necessary for the historian to have high confidence in the resurrection of Christ. And I never said anything about 100% proof. You can not do that for many articles in the New York Times, especially when they use anonymous sourcing.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, I never once changed by position, I have been consistent. I can and do take any ancient text at face value until I have good reason not to do so. I have no reason to suspect that the historicity of the New Testament is not generally accurate. They are historical until shown to be otherwise. And taking any text at face value is no more arbitrary than the standards you have offered that is why you have no idea how many independent sources would be necessary for the historian to have high confidence in the resurrection of Christ. And I never said anything about 100% proof. You can not do that for many articles in the New York Times, especially when they use anonymous sourcing.

If my post led you to believe I was accusing you of wanting 100% proof, then I apologize. My point was that you use the absence of 100% certainty as a defense of your beliefs. And your position is indeed 100% consistent if you take all historical texts at face value and require someone else to prove them wrong. It simply is not common historical methodology. You are not engaging in historical methodology as practiced by historians. You are engaging in "Seer methodology" which you then need to apply across all historical claims in order to be consistent. But your "methodology" is not going to convince anyone who actually looks at history through the lens of historical methodology. No historian I can think of would ever accept your approach as reasoned or useful. And any historian that tried to defend a historical claim the way you have would be laughed out of the industry.


ETA: By the way, applying a flawed methodology consistently doesn't make it a good methodology - it just makes it "consistent."

[seer]

If my post led you to believe I was accusing you of wanting 100% proof, then I apologize. My point was that you use the absence of 100% certainty as a defense of your beliefs. And your position is indeed 100% consistent if you take all historical texts at face value and require someone else to prove them wrong. It simply is not common historical methodology. You are not engaging in historical methodology as practiced by historians. You are engaging in "Seer methodology" which you then need to apply across all historical claims in order to be consistent. But your "methodology" is not going to convince anyone who actually looks at history through the lens of historical methodology. No historian I can think of would ever accept your approach as reasoned or useful. And any historian that tried to defend a historical claim the way you have would be laughed out of the industry.


ETA: By the way, applying a flawed methodology consistently doesn't make it a good methodology - it just makes it "consistent."

Who says it is a flawed methodology? You? Historians who use arbitrary standards, subjective preferences?

[carpedm9587]

Who says it is a flawed methodology? You? Historians who use arbitrary standards, subjective preferences?

Professional historians would assess it as such, Seer. And the fact that historical methodology cannot make a definitive statement of percentages does not make the approach "arbitrary," despite all of your posturing. You're attempting to throw up a lot of smoke to obscure the fact that you have no demonstrable methodology except "believe it until someone can prove it wrong."

The field of historical study is one that has long been around. If your only defense of your approach is to undermine all historical methodology - then I repeat: you don't have much of a methodology, and you have no basis for most of the historical claims you make about Jesus of Nazareth, except using your patented "Seer methodology."

[seer]

Professional historians would assess it as such, Seer. And the fact that historical methodology cannot make a definitive statement of percentages does not make the approach "arbitrary," despite all of your posturing. You're attempting to throw up a lot of smoke to obscure the fact that you have no demonstrable methodology except "believe it until someone can prove it wrong."

The field of historical study is one that has long been around. If your only defense of your approach is to undermine all historical methodology - then I repeat: you don't have much of a methodology, and you have no basis for most of the historical claims you make about Jesus of Nazareth, except using your patented "Seer methodology."

Stop bearing false witness against me Carp. This is not smoke - you proved that the standards are arbitrary. If not tell me how many independent sources the historian would need to have a high confidence in the resurrection of Christ? What is the number Carp? Even with independent sources would they believe it to be true? Of course not; extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence...

[carpedm9587]

Stop bearing false witness against me Carp. This is not smoke - you proved that the standards are arbitrary.

No - I acknowledged that the standards do not provide a fixed scientific formula. That does not make them "arbitrary," which means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Historical methodology is based on established approaches and identifies specific elements whose presence increases the confidence level in a historical claim.

If not tell me how many independent sources the historian would need to have a high confidence in the resurrection of Christ? What is the number Carp? Even with independent sources would they believe it to be true? Of course not; extraordinary events require extraordinary evidence...

As noted - there is no "number." Historical methodology never claims to arrive at a specific formula. As noted, you are leveraging that reality to try to paint a picture of an arbitrary process. You can reject established historical methodology if you wish, but all you are doing is reinforcing the obvious: you have no basis for many of your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, you now don't even have a methodology you can turn to and show historicity at all. All historical claims have just become "arbitrary" by your arguments - including your own. You cannot even claim that the historical claims of Herodotus are historically accurate. You have no remaining methodology other than "if you find it and it's old, believe it until someone can prove it wrong."

[seer]

No - I acknowledged that the standards do not provide a fixed scientific formula. That does not make them "arbitrary," which means "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system." Historical methodology is based on established approaches and identifies specific elements whose presence increases the confidence level in a historical claim.

As noted - there is no "number." Historical methodology never claims to arrive at a specific formula. As noted, you are leveraging that reality to try to paint a picture of an arbitrary process. You can reject established historical methodology if you wish, but all you are doing is reinforcing the obvious: you have no basis for many of your historical claims about Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, you now don't even have a methodology you can turn to and show historicity at all. All historical claims have just become "arbitrary" by your arguments - including your own. You cannot even claim that the historical claims of Herodotus are historically accurate. You have no remaining methodology other than "if you find it and it's old, believe it until someone can prove it wrong."

You are not saying anything Carp. You are still applying arbitrary standards while accusing me of doing the same. BTW Bart Ehrman makes a good case for the historical Jesus and uses the New Testament writings as evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA

[carpedm9587]

You are not saying anything Carp. You are still applying arbitrary standards while accusing me of doing the same.

No - your standards are indeed arbitrary. My standards are based on established historical methodology - which is not arbitrary. I think, perhaps, you don't understand what the word "arbitrary" means, despite my providing a definition.

BTW Bart Ehrman makes a good case for the historical Jesus and uses the New Testament writings as evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzjYmpwbHEA

I've read him. First, he makes many of the same errors/assumptions you make. Second, how can you offer him as proof since at least part of his argument is based in a historical methodology you have dismissed as "arbitrary?" Seer - you cannot have it both ways. If historical methodology is "arbitrary," then you cannot resort to it to defend your claims. That leaves you with no methodology except, "if it's old, I believe it until someone disproves it."

I invite you to take that methodology to ANY professor of history and see what the response is.

[seer]

No - your standards are indeed arbitrary. My standards are based on established historical methodology - which is not arbitrary. I think, perhaps, you don't understand what the word "arbitrary" means, despite my providing a definition.

Your standard is not arbitrary? Then again tell me how many independent sources the historian would need to have a high confidence in the resurrection of Christ?

I've read him. First, he makes many of the same errors/assumptions you make. Second, how can you offer him as proof since at least part of his argument is based in a historical methodology you have dismissed as "arbitrary?" Seer - you cannot have it both ways. If historical methodology is "arbitrary," then you cannot resort to it to defend your claims. That leaves you with no methodology except, "if it's old, I believe it until someone disproves it."

No Carp, I referenced Ehrman because he is using the very historical standards that you are suggesting. But comes to a different conclusion than you.

[carpedm9587]

Your standard is not arbitrary?

No.

Then again tell me how many independent sources the historian would need to have a high confidence in the resurrection of Christ?

Again - for the slow on the uptake - not being able to provide an exact number does not make historical methodology "arbitrary." I think you need to go look up the meaning of that word. Science also cannot provide an exact number for Pi. That does not make mathematics arbitrary. Science cannot date the universe exactly. That does not make science arbitrary. Modern analytics can predict the action of a group, but not an individual. That does not make analytics "arbitrary." The general approach of historical methodology is, "the presence of more of the confirming elements increases confidence in the claim."

On the other hand, "I will believe anything old until someone proves to me I shouldn't" is entirely arbitrary. It is selected on a whim with no possibility of defense that I can see. It lets you cling to your religious beliefs, and that appears to be the primary reason you have set this standard.

No Carp, I referenced Ehrman because he is using the very historical standards that you are suggesting. But comes to a different conclusion than you.

Ehrman and I can actually engage in a discussion about historical methodology, how he is and is not consistently applying it, and how that impacts the conclusions.

Unfortunately, you cannot be part of that discussion. You have just dismissed all of historical methodology as arbitrary, so Ehrman's arguments are irrelevant to you and cannot be leveraged by you. Your baby just went out with the bathwater.

[seer]

No.



Again - for the slow on the uptake - not being able to provide an exact number does not make historical methodology "arbitrary." I think you need to go look up the meaning of that word. Science also cannot provide an exact number for Pi. That does not make mathematics arbitrary. Science cannot date the universe exactly. That does not make science arbitrary. Modern analytics can predict the action of a group, but not an individual. That does not make analytics "arbitrary." The general approach of historical methodology is, "the presence of more of the confirming elements increases confidence in the claim."

On the other hand, "I will believe anything old until someone proves to me I shouldn't" is entirely arbitrary. It is selected on a whim with no possibility of defense that I can see. It lets you cling to your religious beliefs, and that appears to be the primary reason you have set this standard.

No Carp, you are missing the point. If there is no objective number for what would constitute a high confidence for the resurrection then it is arbitrary - how could it be otherwise? And stop ascribing motives to my beliefs, that is hypocritical on your part since you don't like it done to you. If I read historical accounts of Lincoln's life I would take those at face value until I had good reason not too. The same with the New York Times.

Ehrman and I can actually engage in a discussion about historical methodology, how he is and is not consistently applying it, and how that impacts the conclusions.

Unfortunately, you cannot be part of that discussion. You have just dismissed all of historical methodology as arbitrary, so Ehrman's arguments are irrelevant to you and cannot be leveraged by you. Your baby just went out with the bathwater.

Of course he thinks he is consistently applying historical methodology, and comes to a different conclusion than you. And I'm NOT depending on Ehrman, just showing that using historical standards one could come to a different conclusion than YOU. Because well, it is all rather subjective...

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, you are missing the point. If there is no objective number for what would constitute a high confidence for the resurrection then it is arbitrary - how could it be otherwise?

I've explained this now numerous times. Either you are not capable of understanding the point, or you are being willfully obtuse to it. Either reality makes further explanation pointless.

And stop ascribing motives to my beliefs, that is hypocritical on your part since you don't like it done to you.

This complaint is justified and I apologize. If my explanation for why you have chosen this arbitrary standard of yours is not correct, then what is your explanation/defense?

If I read historical accounts of Lincoln's life I would take those at face value until I had good reason not too. The same with the New York Times.

Apples and oranges. You do not actually "accept these at face value." And I would sincerely doubt that you accept anything in the NYT at "face value." You accept them for the same reasons that bonafide historians accept things: for the historical account of Lincoln's life, you accept it as the account aligns with previous information you have about that era, and other accounts you have read, or because the author is a historian you respect and have read before. I sincerely doubt that, if you were handed a book about the "History of the Life of Ronald Demorganstock" that you would "accept it at face value" with absolutely no context or secondary evidence and wait for someone to prove it wrong. Like the rest of us, you would hold it in the "I wonder" category until you had some basis for accepting it.

Of course he thinks he is consistently applying historical methodology, and comes to a different conclusion than you.

Yes he does - on both counts.

And I'm NOT depending on Ehrman, just showing that using historical standards one could come to a different conclusion than YOU. Because well, it is all rather subjective...

It is impossible for historical analysis to divorce itself entirely from the subjectivity of the historian. That is a well-known conundrum. It is one of the reasons why most historians hold their "historical truths" more or less loosely, depending on the evidence. Except you, of course, who claim a high-level of certitude (and, by implication, objectivity) for events that you cannot support using normal historical methodology. Of course, you don't need to - since you have just dismissed all historical methodology as "arbitrary," leaving you with your arbitrarily selected and unsupported "Seer-patented" methodology.

You're going in circles, Seer. My original point stands: Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth. That point was made in the context of widely accept historical methodology. If you reject historical methodology, then we really have no basis for this conversation. It's like trying to discuss the age of the earth with someone who dismisses science as "arbitrary." The discussion is pointless.

[seer]

I've explained this now numerous times. Either you are not capable of understanding the point, or you are being willfully obtuse to it. Either reality makes further explanation pointless.

You just confirmed that the standard would be arbitrary.

Apples and oranges. You do not actually "accept these at face value." And I would sincerely doubt that you accept anything in the NYT at "face value." You accept them for the same reasons that bonafide historians accept things: for the historical account of Lincoln's life, you accept it as the account aligns with previous information you have about that era, and other accounts you have read, or because the author is a historian you respect and have read before. I sincerely doubt that, if you were handed a book about the "History of the Life of Ronald Demorganstock" that you would "accept it at face value" with absolutely no context or secondary evidence and wait for someone to prove it wrong. Like the rest of us, you would hold it in the "I wonder" category until you had some basis for accepting it.

You are correct about the NYT, but they have a bad track record. I'll give you a for instance: a few years back I read Eisenhower's "At Ease: Stories I tell my Friends." There are a number of first and second hand anecdotal references and stories. Things I never knew. I took them all at face value, I had no good reason not to. Wouldn't you take them as face value?

Yes he does - on both counts.

So why do you believe that you understand this better than Ehrman who is a scholar in the field?

It is impossible for historical analysis to divorce itself entirely from the subjectivity of the historian. That is a well-known conundrum. It is one of the reasons why most historians hold their "historical truths" more or less loosely, depending on the evidence. Except you, of course, who claim a high-level of certitude (and, by implication, objectivity) for events that you cannot support using normal historical methodology. Of course, you don't need to - since you have just dismissed all historical methodology as "arbitrary," leaving you with your arbitrarily selected and unsupported "Seer-patented" methodology.

You're going in circles, Seer. My original point stands: Seer cannot adequately support the historical claims he makes about Jesus of Nazareth. That point was made in the context of widely accept historical methodology. If you reject historical methodology, then we really have no basis for this conversation. It's like trying to discuss the age of the earth with someone who dismisses science as "arbitrary." The discussion is pointless.

Yet Ehrman does make a case for the historical Jesus (save miracles of course, he is an atheist) - why do you disagree with him?

[carpedm9587]

You just confirmed that the standard would be arbitrary.

Umm...if you say so...

You are correct about the NYT, but they have a bad track record. I'll give you a for instance: a few years back I read Eisenhower's "At Ease: Stories I tell my Friends." There are a number of first and second hand anecdotal references and stories. Things I never knew. I took them all at face value, I had no good reason not to. Wouldn't you take them as face value?

Of course not - and neither do you. Like me, you have a body of writings about, and even from, Eisenhower that attest to his honesty/accuracy and character. The writings are also based in a familiar culture that provides multiple confirming reference points. But even with all that, my understanding of how human memory works makes me take any claim about "what happened" with a grain of salt until I have some form of confirmation. We are too prone to forming bad memories, embellishing stories, and misremembering for me to take any memory-based claims at face value.

Furthermore, you are (again) comparing apples and oranges. Imagine having a book entitled "At Ease: Stories I Tell My Friends" written by "Buddy Furlonzonger" and ask yourself again if you would take the writings "at face value." While you are at it, have some of those stories be about how he levitated to the top of a 20 story building to rescue a girl who was about to jump, and have him quote long speeches he heard a friend of his give 20-70 years before. Then ask yourself if you still accept it "at face value."

So why do you believe that you understand this better than Ehrman who is a scholar in the field?

Yet Ehrman does make a case for the historical Jesus (save miracles of course, he is an atheist) - why do you disagree with him?

An appeal to authority? Really? This is what you're resorting too? Seer - it has been at least five years since I read Ehrman's book, so I'd have to review before I could even begin to answer you effectively. First, as I recall, his primary case was about the existence of Jesus, and on that he and I are in complete agreement: I have no cause to think Jesus never existed. There is adequate evidence to support that historical claim. I don't remember what he said about the specific details surrounding the life of Jesus (e.g., quotes attributed to him, day-to-day details, miracles, etc.). I don't remember him going there.

But all of that is irrelevant. You dismiss all historical methodology as arbitrary - so there can be no "experts" and there is no mechanism for determining the truth of historical claims except your arbitrary "if it's old, I believe it until someone proves otherwise." Indeed, according to your most recent posts, it doesn't even have to be old! You'll apparently just accept anything anyone writes about anything and, so long as they are making a historical claim, you will accept it at face value until someone proves it wrong.

Seer - you have dug yourself into a significant hole. I suggest you stop digging.

[seer]

An appeal to authority? Really? This is what you're resorting too? Seer - it has been at least five years since I read Ehrman's book, so I'd have to review before I could even begin to answer you effectively. First, as I recall, his primary case was about the existence of Jesus, and on that he and I are in complete agreement: I have no cause to think Jesus never existed. There is adequate evidence to support that historical claim. I don't remember what he said about the specific details surrounding the life of Jesus (e.g., quotes attributed to him, day-to-day details, miracles, etc.). I don't remember him going there.

No, Ehrman's point, which he speaks to in my link, is that he takes the letters of Paul and the synoptic Gospels as primary historical sources. That we wouldn't expect extra biblical independent sources. And he takes these these books as independent sources.

But all of that is irrelevant. You dismiss all historical methodology as arbitrary - so there can be no "experts" and there is no mechanism for determining the truth of historical claims except your arbitrary "if it's old, I believe it until someone proves otherwise." Indeed, according to your most recent posts, it doesn't even have to be old! You'll apparently just accept anything anyone writes about anything and, so long as they are making a historical claim, you will accept it at face value until someone proves it wrong.

It doesn't matter Carp, I'm using your standard!

Seer - you have dug yourself into a significant hole. I suggest you stop digging.

Don't be dishonest Carp, I'm not using the historical methodology and you know it. But you are! So when a scholar like Ehrman disagrees with you on the historicity of many of the New Testament books on what basis would you disagree?