Absence of faith

[Pebble]

But it's the principle I'm interested in. You are claiming that there is, or can be, evidence of an absence. How?

That probably depends on the specific nature of the claims that must be true if 'jesus' as described in the bible existed and the completeness of historical records at that time.

For example we can be pretty sure that the events described must have occurred before the middle of the first century, that Herod should have been in power at the time of the supposed birth, that a census occurred in palestine around the time of his birth and that 33 years later, there should have been an unusual crucifixion, with Pilate as the Roman responsible, taking place over passover.

So given that some of these events are historically incompatible, one can suggest that the story as presented and believed must be wrong. Further, given the nature of the events one might reasonable expect at least some of them to have been recorded in Roman texts. It of course does not mean that there was not a 'jesus' who was a holyman and that the embellishments are just that, further it cannot show that the teachings attributed to a man called Jesus could not have originated from a man called Jesus.

[ChrisOfNottingham]

I really didn't intend to start a historicity of Jesus breakaway thread.

It of course does not mean that there was not a 'jesus' who was a holyman and that the embellishments are just that, further it cannot show that the teachings attributed to a man called Jesus could not have originated from a man called Jesus.

But which Jesus? There were so many and all doing much the same thing. Given that most of the NT is fabricated why should it be attached to one guru more than another? Indulge me for a moment...

Just imagine in 2000 years time when we worship at the alter of Bob, the bringer of Rock and Roll, also known as The King. He wandered from town to town with his guitar on his back, picking up groupies and new band members as he went. He invented the electric guitar by building one out of an old oak mantelpiece and winding his own coils. It is said that he used huge amounts of drugs and trashed hotel rooms around the world, being especially fond of throwing TVs out of the window. He died three times, once in a swimming pool, once in a plane crash and finally by choking on his own (or possibly someone else's) vomit. He invented drop D tuning and once at one of his concerts a load of deranged Hells Angles killed a guy, which he wasn't too happy about.

So who is the real Bob that this story is based on? That's how I see the non magical historical Jesus.

[DrS]

Well there's enough in Josephus and Tacitus to suggest, very close to the supposed events, the existence of an individual, known as a "Christ", who had a brother called James, and who was the founder in Judea of the cult which Nero held as responsible for the burning of Rome, and who was put to death by procurator Pilate.

It does look as though the stories of the nativity were fiddled with to mould some real situation into one which fitted in with prophecies, and both Matthew and Luke seem to have taken real stories (a census, or the Magi) and added them to do just that.

There are Persian sources which back up the Magi story, but of course it mightn't have been "the" Jesus they were visiting. Life of Brian begins to look like a history film rather than a comedy ...

[DrS]

It of course does not mean that there was not a 'jesus' who was a holyman and that the embellishments are just that, further it cannot show that the teachings attributed to a man called Jesus could not have originated from a man called Jesus.

Yep, this is what I was driving at.

[ChrisOfNottingham]

Well there's enough in Josephus and Tacitus to suggest, very close to the supposed events...

I think this is one of the areas where a little forensic reading suggests creative editing on the part of the church.

It of course does not mean that there was not a 'jesus' who was a holyman and that the embellishments are just that, further it cannot show that the teachings attributed to a man called Jesus could not have originated from a man called Jesus.

Of course this true. But it's a bit of a Russell's teapot argument. I might as well say "It of course does not mean that there was not at an 'Eric' who was a plumber and that the embellishments are just that, further it cannot show that the teachings attributed to a man called Jesus could not have originated from a plumber called Eric.

[DrS]

I think this is one of the areas where a little forensic reading suggests creative editing on the part of the church.

There are some parts, particularly of Josephus, where interpolations are pretty certain. There are others, though, where creative editing is not suspected.

[DrS]

Of course this true. But it's a bit of a Russell's teapot argument. I might as well say "It of course does not mean that there was not at an 'Eric' who was a plumber and that the embellishments are just that, further it cannot show that the teachings attributed to a man called Jesus could not have originated from a plumber called Eric.

Yes, and it doesn't prove there isn't a flying spaghetti monster either. This was the point, that you cannot prove an absence.

[ChrisOfNottingham]

There are some parts, particularly of Josephus, where interpolations are pretty certain. There are others, though, where creative editing is not suspected.

I really can't remember what the bits have to say where editing is not suspected. Or even if there are any.

You see, for me, the acceptance of creative editing at all doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the texts. It shows there was a mindset of needing to fabricate historical evidence. Why would that be?

And just because some of it was poorly executed doesn't mean it was all done that poorly. After all this time it's hard to back up many parts of the texts one way or the other. But the high probability that certain parts of it were fabricated by the church make it all a bit fishy to me (fish pun!).

Anyway, this is just one brick in the wall of historicity evidence and it for me it is somewhat underwhelming.

[ChrisOfNottingham]

Yes, and it doesn't prove there isn't a flying spaghetti monster either. This was the point, that you cannot prove an absence.

I never claimed to be able to prove anything. If you remember, I was openly admitting to it being my belief.

[Harryprice]

In the absence of evidence, I take an agnostic position if the concept is logical, if it is illogical I file it under nonsense until either there is a sufficient weight of evidence to cause me to revise, or the understanding of our universe has changed to render the idea plausible.

If there is no evidence to support a concept I don't see how it can be illogical. Before pulsars were discovered one could discuss the consept that such a celestial object pulsing several times a second might exist but you could not dismiss it as illogical.

Why should you be any more offended by someone claiming to talk to your relative specifically. Either those claiming to commune with the dead offend you or not, who they think they are communing with is irrelevant, however irritating.

Because it means people are putting words into the mouths of a dead relative which I find distasteful.

Do you find the idea of children being taught biblical stories as factual at all offensive?

[Pebble]

If there is no evidence to support a concept I don't see how it can be illogical. Before pulsars were discovered one could discuss the consept that such a celestial object pulsing several times a second might exist but you could not dismiss it as illogical.



Because it means people are putting words into the mouths of a dead relative which I find distasteful.

Do you find the idea of children being taught biblical stories as factual at all offensive?

There is no evidence to support a perpetual motion machine, and it is illogical to propose one without first being able to rewrite the laws of physics.

Teaching children beliefs as facts is very different to a nutter telling adults that they can speak to the dead. What you find distasteful is entirely a matter for you, my question was in respect of the logic of your gut reaction, why should it make any difference what dead person's mouth they are putting words in?

That said, in infant school my children were indeed told stories from the bible which were passed off as facts, I had taken the precaution of warning them in advance that this would happen, even very young children can handle contradictory information rather better than is commonly held.

[Harryprice]

There is no evidence to support a perpetual motion machine, and it is illogical to propose one without first being able to rewrite the laws of physics.

You are talking about the currently accepted laws of physics. If someone discovered a naturally occuring system of perpetual motion, the laws would need to be rewritten. You cannot discount a future discovery by logic. There are many things we know about the universe now that would have appeared illogical to science only decades ago but they existed then, and now, nevertheless.

Teaching children beliefs as facts is very different to a nutter telling adults that they can speak to the dead. What you find distasteful is entirely a matter for you, my question was in respect of the logic of your gut reaction, why should it make any difference what dead person's mouth they are putting words in?

Are you saying that having an emotional attachment to one's relatives, compared to strangers, is illogical?

That said, in infant school my children were indeed told stories from the bible which were passed off as facts, I had taken the precaution of warning them in advance that this would happen, even very young children can handle contradictory information rather better than is commonly held.

No one told me the bible wasn't fact. If a teacher is telling you factual stuff most of the time and then teaches you biblical stuff in the same way, you are likely to believe them.

When Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door I try to point out to them that I am happy for them to believe whatever they like but feel they have no right to lecture me on the subject. They never understand that some people may find trying to convert people to a religion offensive.

[Matt]

You are talking about the currently accepted laws of physics. If someone discovered a naturally occuring system of perpetual motion, the laws would need to be rewritten.

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

• Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

[Harryprice]

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.

• Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

Much as I admire Eddington, experience leads me to believe it is hubris to discount any possibility in nature. Evidence always trumps logic or theory.

[Matt]

To explain, the laws of thermodynamics were discovered like most theories by experimentation, obvervation and logical deduction.

However they were later derived in a field of endeavor called statistical physics. In other words they dropped out of pure mathmatics without recourse to the physical world of sensation and perception .

Were you to consider the universality of doubt where you acknowlwdge the possibiliy that the reality of your sesnes is somehow faked and that you are a brain in a jar, computer simulation or the like, then you may still be certain of your own existence as a being capable of thought, and also of those mathemetical and logical proofs that existed independent of falliable sensations. Thermodymics like any other branch of statistics is Maths and therefore one of these things you may still be certian of.

If in fact I found a perpertual motion machine that all my observations indicated was the genuine article then I would still not doubt the Second Law of thermodymaics any more than I would doubt Pythagorus' theorum upon seeing a right angled euclidean triangle whose opposite side had a square which did not add up to the sum of the squares to the adjacents. Instead I would have to conclude that my senses had been somehow fooled.