tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post3499556546630334045..comments2023-06-03T10:46:52.222-07:00Comments on The Mythicism Files: Cry "Creationism!"Quixiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-49896493619469934222017-07-16T16:39:01.507-07:002017-07-16T16:39:01.507-07:00Hi Cale:
Forgive my delay in engaging you on this...Hi Cale:<br /><br />Forgive my delay in engaging you on this, but I was in the middle of traveling when this comment came in and I completely forgot about it until now that I am checking in. <br /><br />The main problem with what you are saying here is that you are equivocating the argument from embryology above with the argument from molecular biology. <br /><br />These are distinct and separate approaches. <br /><br />That you offer up an academic citation about molecular genetics does nothing to strengthen this equivocation. This has no bearing on simple comparative embryology. <br /><br />Question: Are you a creationist? Just curious.Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-149923738777025162017-06-06T00:19:30.862-07:002017-06-06T00:19:30.862-07:00>. It could very easily be falsified by finding...>. It could very easily be falsified by finding a specimen of raccoon, for instance, which developed from a blastopore that eventually became its mouth. This would scrap the whole theory.<br /><br />The trouble is that we regularly *do* find counterexamples to this, and scientists have had to bring forth auxiliary hypothesis to try and explain this data. E.g. "Intuitively, one would expect that the historical continuity of morphological characters is underpinned by the continuity of the genes that govern the development of these characters. However, things are not so simple: one of the most important results of the past 15 years of molecular developmental genetics is the realization that homologous characters can have different genetic and developmental bases. This seems paradoxical, because the historical continuity of morphological characters implies continuity of the (genetic) information about the characters."<br /><br />Gunther Wagner, "The developmental genetics of homologyCale B.T.https://www.blogger.com/profile/08473503761858760056noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-7565200775418216322015-03-26T14:04:15.769-07:002015-03-26T14:04:15.769-07:00Ear, rather.Ear, rather.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-57669373798163514702015-03-26T09:18:02.694-07:002015-03-26T09:18:02.694-07:00[WhatShowsItself:]
[Civil war buffs also enjoy rea...[WhatShowsItself:]<br />[Civil war buffs also enjoy reading works of history. You might consider talking to a few who took it into their heads to get an advanced degree in the subject, and the kind of unrelenting torture that is involved in apprehending the tools and acquiring the mental capacities requisite for historical research -- even in that domain, where the sources are almost all at least in English. The idea that there is any discipline here has escaped you and this particular post brings this out.]<br /><br />The idea that there is any discipline there has NOT escaped me. I specifically said that I do not devalue it. The point of the piece was a comparison of the empiricism of science with the lack of empiricism of NT Studies. <br /><br />I even repeated my main point in response to your first comment, and I will repeat it once more:<br /><br />The fact that a complex of three bones in the reptilian jaw evolved to form the three main bones in the mammalian ear does NOT have the same epistemological authority as the conclusion that Second Temple Judaism was probably not as monolithic or even as monotheistic as we previously thought. <br /><br />That you think I am saying that there is no discipline there … makes me think I should maybe start ignoring you altogether as an obstinate combative troll. If you persist with your condescending and patronizing tone, I will probably stop publishing your comments. If you keep misrepresenting what I say, I definitely will. <br />Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-21941648721161006422015-03-26T09:17:39.540-07:002015-03-26T09:17:39.540-07:00[The works of Couchaud [sic] in the 20s and even 3...[The works of Couchaud [sic] in the 20s and even 30s were best sellers.] <br /><br />I recently read Couchoud on Marcion. That he was the most influential French writer on religion and myth during those decades is true, but to call him a “best seller” is a bit much. Much like today, higher criticism has a modest readership compared to the pop audiences. <br /><br />[WhatShowsItself:]<br />[It was thought through and compared with the corpus of evidence by thousands; people gave it up as they gave up the geocentric theory; in the end they were overwhelmed by data. This isn't an argument that it shouldn't be considered again; just against THE SUGGESTION THAT NO ONE HAS CONSIDERED IT, WHICH YOU MAKE REPEATEDLY ABOVE.]<br /><br />Allow me to interrupt you in mid-strawman for a moment …. The first part of that fragment shows some insight on your part, which could be an interesting springboard for another discussion, but then it gives itself away as an axe-grinding red herring.<br /><br />The fact is that NOWHERE does this essay contain any expression lamenting the lack of consideration given to what you call “the mythological school.” That you say I make such a claim “repeatedly” above makes me question your reading comprehension. <br /><br />[WhatShowItself:]<br />[The principal ideas are sound enough; they were already known in a sense: the protestant critique of catholicism is the point of origin for the mountain of 'pagan parallels' that is forever being repeated. The mythological school attempted to extend this account and make it a complete explanation of 'Christianity'. It just doesn't work. The 'semitic' stratum of the material is where everything goes wrong, and this difficulty was multiplied 10,000 fold after the war, with the discovery of the Qumran material and a number of other forces: these reopened the question of late 2nd temple religion, and the question what is and isn't 'Jewish', and, for example, inaugurated the critical evaluation of rabbinical literature. The latter enquiry is really still just beginning, typical marquee authors are Hayim Lapin, Daniel Boyarin, Seth Schwartz, etc. etc. The a priori ideas about what is 'Jewish' that you work with, for example, are basically just the common ground between the church and the rabbis in late antiquity, a sort of implicit agreement about the relation between the two 'religions'. ]<br /><br />There’s actually little I would disagree with you with in this bit. But It needs to be pointed out that “pagan parallels” have nothing to do with anything I’ve written so far anywhere. Such an approach is the weakest imaginable defense of mythicism as far as I’m concerned, so to try to pin that approach on me is just bullshit. <br /><br /><br /> <br />Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-64300140283158160042015-03-26T09:16:30.399-07:002015-03-26T09:16:30.399-07:00[WhatShowsItself:]
["Quantitative" and &...[WhatShowsItself:]<br />["Quantitative" and "objective" are completely independent of each other; astrology can be as quantitative as you like. ]<br /><br />No. <br />Astrology (which uses the apparent positions of celestial objects as the basis for the prediction of future events) became irreversibly separated from astronomy (which is the scientific study of objects and phenomena originating beyond the Earth's atmosphere) in the 17th century. Before this separation they were treated together as a single discipline. The reason for the separation was the quantitativeness at issue. Extract everything that is NOT quantifiable from this combined discipline …. What is left is the science of astronomy. <br />What you’ve taken away is “astrology,” which can then be rejected as fanciful superstition riding piggy-back on actual scientific observation. <br />There is NOTHING quantitative about astrology. The fact that Mercury might be undergoing retrograde motion is demonstrable and is an astronomical observation. The notion that this motion has significance to human events and interactions down here on earth is an astrological claim. The illusion of technique that this system of divination depends on is precisely that, an illusion. Homeopathic “provings” depend on a similar illusion. <br /><br />If you want to continue thinking that astrology is “quantitative as you like” … go ahead, but I think it’s a stupid analogy.<br /><br /><br />[WhatShowsItself:]<br />[No one suggested that the Soviet use of the literature of the mythological school amounted to a scientific test ... ]<br /><br />Actually … someone DID suggest this … and that someone is YOU:<br /><br />[WhatShowsItself – previous comment]<br />[You keep saying that that the existence of Jesus is somehow an a priori of these enquiries and that the opposing mythicizing claim hasn't been properly tested. But in fact the 'mythological school' was quite widespread in the early 20th c.; INDEED IT WAS TAUGHT ALONGSIDE DARWINISM IN SOVIET SCHOOLS.] – [my emphasis –your unedited fragment]. If I misread it, it was because it was badly expressed. Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-37968838288988949532015-03-25T05:40:01.744-07:002015-03-25T05:40:01.744-07:00"Quantitative" and "objective"..."Quantitative" and "objective" are completely independent of each other; astrology can be as quantitative as you like. <br /><br />No one suggested that the Soviet use of the literature of the mythological school amounted to a scientific test, if that's what you are thinking. The suggestion was that the hypothesis was well known and well developed in the early 20th c. The works of Couchaud in the 20s and even 30s were best sellers. It was thought through and compared with the corpus of evidence by thousands; people gave it up as they gave up the geocentric theory; in the end they were overwhelmed by data. This isn't an argument that it shouldn't be considered again; just against the suggestion that no one has considered it, which you make repeatedly above. The principal ideas are sound enough; they were already known in a sense: the protestant critique of catholicism is the point of origin for the mountain of 'pagan parallels' that is forever being repeated. The mythological school attempted to extend this account and make it a complete explanation of 'Christianity'. It just doesn't work. The 'semitic' stratum of the material is where everything goes wrong, and this difficulty was multiplied 10,000 fold after the war, with the discovery of the Qumran material and a number of other forces: these reopened the question of late 2nd temple religion, and the question what is and isn't 'Jewish', and, for example, inaugurated the critical evaluation of rabbinical literature. The latter enquiry is really still just beginning, typical marquee authors are Hayim Lapin, Daniel Boyarin, Seth Schwartz, etc. etc. The a priori ideas about what is 'Jewish' that you work with, for example, are basically just the common ground between the church and the rabbis in late antiquity, a sort of implicit agreement about the relation between the two 'religions'. <br /><br />Civil war buffs also enjoy reading works of history. You might consider talking to a few who took it into their heads to get an advanced degree in the subject, and the kind of unrelenting torture that is involved in apprehending the tools and acquiring the mental capacities requisite for historical research -- even in that domain, where the sources are almost all at least in English. The idea that there is any discipline here has escaped you and this particular post brings this out.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-70937441973644301202015-03-23T22:10:14.072-07:002015-03-23T22:10:14.072-07:00I agree with you that all of those disciplines are...I agree with you that all of those disciplines are to some degree quantitative and objective. I like the field. I've read a lot of its literature. <br /><br />I'll repeat: The fact that Galatians was written in 51 is not of the same epistemological caliber as the fact that the three aforementioned bones in the transition from reptile to mammal were repurposed. This does not devalue NT studies. I puts it in perspective re: "certitude".<br /><br />I don't think that one can argue that the coerced systematic negations of the Soviet educational system qualify as "teaching mythologizing" or as a "testing" of the proposed paradigm. <br /> <br />That's silly. <br />Come to think of it, it comes close to Godwin's law in itself (but no cigar). <br /><br />laughs <br /><br />Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-57257056597390866752015-03-23T21:56:15.676-07:002015-03-23T21:56:15.676-07:00I agree that it is trivially and superficially tru...I agree that it is trivially and superficially true. <br /><br />And I appreciate that you stopped using the comparison. <br /><br />Some people lead with it, though. Quixiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03126711689901268060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-37923754559391568722015-03-23T20:34:41.103-07:002015-03-23T20:34:41.103-07:00// So the use of the word "creationist" ...// So the use of the word "creationist" as a pejorative rests on an epistemological authority that is vouchsafed by the methodological rigor intrinsic to the application of the scientific method.//<br /><br />It isn't used that way necessarily. Here is an example by James McGrath just 30 mins ago:<br /><br />"So now the consensus of historians and scholars is a "hive mind"? That is precisely what creationists say about the consensus of biologists."<br />http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2015/01/bart-ehrman-on-jesus-mythicism.html#comment-1924574447<br /><br />It is often used to poo-poo the consensus of the mainstream by suggesting entrenched bias for ideological purposes. I've been guilty of accusing (some!) mythicists in the past as being "like creationists", where those mythicists have made that accusation about mainstream consensus views. I don't do that anymore because people take it as saying that the case for the historicity of Jesus is as strong as the case for evolution (which is not true), and so discussion gets sidetracked, and so it is counter-productive.<br /><br />As far as the analogy applies (i.e. rejection of mainstream as ideologically biased), I think the analogy is sound. Just as I've seen some mythicists use the "like creationists" against some historicists soundly. As long as the explanation for why the analogy holds is given, we can understand how it is being used, as McGrath does above.<br /><br />The problem is that **all** analogies break at some point. Arguing the validity of the analogy based on where it is NOT being applied is pointless. <br /><br />If the analogy is that "the case for historicity over mythicism is as strong as evolution over creationism", mythicists would be right to complain. But "(some) mythicists reject mainstream consensus for being ideologically biased like creationists complain about 'evolutionists'" is trivially true.Gakusei Donhttp://members.optusnet.com.au/gakuseidonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4753305954289256652.post-38426410789571260482015-03-23T14:21:24.914-07:002015-03-23T14:21:24.914-07:00I don't think there is anything in this attemp...I don't think there is anything in this attempt to make a major credibility distinction between what you call 'New Testament scholarship' and biology. What corresponds to Biology in the present discussion would be History, and the attending disciplines that deal with classical sources, e.g. philology, papyrology, epigraphy, etc. 'Origins of Christianity' or 'New Testament' are just titles for areas of this formally distinctive kind of research, like say, 'Microbiology' or 'Vertebrate Anatomy' or whatever ('New Testament' studies pertains especially to a particular body of 'sources' and its criticism.) <br /><br />The methods of historical research are very different from those of biology, but I don't think you will be able to construct any interesting constitutive epistemic weakness for historical research. Note for example, that Darwin frequently gives the hypothesis of the Indo-European family of languages a considerable role in his discovery of the theory of evolution; his comparison of forms was to some extent modeled on the philological comparisons. It was only when 'biology' adopted some of the methods of history that it could break with natural history and traditional medicine. <br /><br />It is of course characteristic of the present period to look on this sort of research as worthless and 'unscientific': thus American universities are dropping the study of classics, ancient history etc. and directing the funds to 'STEM' fields; many European states are dropping their funding of historical and classical and philosophical etc. research in favor of the American model of funding 'natural science' only, and so on. This is of course merely a matter of power and economics and has nothing to do with truth or knowledge or the importance of these. <br /><br />It isn't at all true by the way that there is no openness to new data and so forth in this chunk of historical research: the great document finds of the 20th century, Nag Hammadi, Qumran, the Cairo geniza and the epigraphic and other advances due to Israeli archaeology have reoriented the relevant areas. The work of Sanders you mention is merely attempting to formulate a new postwar 'synthesis', a process that has gone on and on. <br /><br />Indeed the facts are almost the reverse of what you represent. You keep saying that that the existence of Jesus is somehow an a priori of these enquiries and that the opposing mythicizing claim hasn't been properly tested. But in fact the 'mythological school' was quite widespread in the early 20th c.; indeed it was taught alongside Darwinism in soviet schools. Its period is a bit like that of the 'mechanism' vs. 'vitalism' dispute. The post-war flood of data brought the 'mythological' ideas into disrepute; it went out exactly the way vitalism did. <br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com