Dawkin's God Delusion

[sonofstan]

I'm sorry to be rude, but it's comments like this that push legitimate discussions over the edge. It's just nonsensical. Look the word science up in a dictionary.

why is it nonsensical? - i never said scientific truth wasn't 'true'; i just mean that certain things are 'true' in ways that are not narrowly scientific. Read the rest of the post.

[BohsPartisan]

If I took a huge sword and slashed at the space under the earth, slashing a space wider that the diameter, then if there was an invisible rooster, I'd kill him. You just said he was invisible, not "uninjureable". (there is a word, but its 4 am here, i am tired)

100 euro............should I pm you my address?

I require a video of said injury. Oh hold on, he's invisible... :p

[sonofstan]

SOS,
I'm very familiar with theology and philosophy. I studied philosophy in UCD including an elective course in the philosophy of religion. Most philosophy is nonsense to be honest, that includes Descartes. Aristotle who lived nearly 2.000 years before Descartes was nearly 2,000 years more advanced in his thinking.

the second sentence above is a hardly sufficient condition for the first - it is open to question whether D4IT undergrads in the philosophy dept. ever get even slightly familiar with the subject*TBH; I should know - I teach them......

Also... can a mod do something about the misplaced apostrophe in the thread title? guy's name is 'Dawkins' so it should be 'Dawkins' God Delusion'

*not suggesting this is true of you, of course

[Poor Student]

Aristotle who lived nearly 2.000 years before Descartes was nearly 2,000 years more advanced in his thinking.

What's 2000 years less advanced than the natural existence of slaves and the natural inferiority of women?:eek:

[BohsPartisan]

What's 2000 years less advanced than the natural existence of slaves and the natural inferiority of women?:eek:

Aristotle was a Materialist. He understood that our consciousness begins with the material world. Descartes did not. In other ways as you say Aristotle was a creature of his time, he could not have been otherwise. I'm merely saying that in his mode of thinking Aristotle was more advanced than Descartes, not that all his ideas were correct.

SOS,
Yeah I know what you mean. There are some areas of what I was supposed to have studied that I know SFA about because I didn't bother. Witgenstein for example.

[pete]

Watch South Parks Go God Go (http://www.tv.com/south-park/go-god-go-xii-2/episode/894307/summary.html?tag=ep_list;title;12) episodes Part I & II & everything is clear. :D

[finlma]

As for Dawkins saying that he is his own man and his ideas are his own, well I still have to question why he feels the need to ram down the throat of people in the same way that hardline Christians try to ram their ideas down peoples throats.

Dawkins doesn't ram anything down the throat of anyone. You can listen to him if you want and don't otherwise. Its not only hardline Christians that ram religion down peoples throats - schools teach religion to our kids every day.

[BohsPartisan]

Exactly. If I ever have kids I don't want religion anywhere near them, which is another reason this subject is so important to me.

[Lim till i die]

Exactly. If I ever have kids I don't want religion anywhere near them, which is another reason this subject is so important to me.

The kiddies don't have to do religion in school. I never bothered

It's not really ramming down the throat when you have a choice ;)

(This has just been my experience of school. I apologise if anyone else has had children in schools where religion is compulsory. But I doubt such a place exists)

[BohsPartisan]

It was rammed down our throats at school. The majority of schools are still owned by the catholic church.

[finlma]

(This has just been my experience of school. I apologise if anyone else has had children in schools where religion is compulsory. But I doubt such a place exists)

95% of primary schools in Ireland are Catholic and teaching religion is enforced. Its not that easy to opt out.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Woo! Check out the big brain on SoS.

The difference is this; Theology is not akin to astrology or the exegesis of Harry Potter novels. Subjective. But go on...


... it is a study undertaken by serious people. Serious or no -they're still barking up the wrong tree.


If people you respect in one area also appear to have a deep interest in something else, then it would seem to be the least one could do to pay the tribute of respecting that pursuit as sincere and un- ephemeral. Respect or no -they're still barking up the wrong tree.


Anyone who reads Augustine or Origen or Aquinas - or more modern philosophers of religion such as levinas or Marion - will grasp immediately that, whatever the validity of the ultimate claims, we are in the presence of real thought. Ah good ol' Tommy Aquinas "the world looks just great -therefore someone HAD to have designed it". There was nobody in the presence of real thought the day he thought up that nugget. He was a man of his time as we all are so I'll leave him at that -but much modern religious philosophy seems to about trying to shoe-horn the middle-eastern fairytales it obsesses with and of course derives from into the unfolding information we have about the universe.


Works such as Dawkins - and that of even more egregious figures such as the silly AC Grayling - play a loose game, equating a 'common sense' idea of rational with its philosophical counterpart, and assuming a match between the two. Actually, it is extraordinarily difficult to work out any definition of reason that isn't simply tautologous - and reason is of no more help in saying anything useful about 'truth' - as opposed to 'facts' - than religion. :confused: (sucks biro) ...um ...could you repeat the ...um ...stuff about the things :)

[dahamsta]

I like this. From here (http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html). Think I'll buy the tshirt.

adam

[micls]

95% of primary schools in Ireland are Catholic and teaching religion is enforced. Its not that easy to opt out.

Regardless of whether schools are Catholic or not it is a constitutional right of every child to get 30mins of religious education every day. Therefore all schools (including Educate together multi denominational schools) are required to teach it.

Saying that in most Educate Together schools the focus of the religion time is moral education or educating children on different faiths and what others believe rather than telling them to believe something.

I will qualify as a teacher in a few months and the fact that i will more than likely be forced to lie to children is sickening.

[sonofstan]

much modern religious philosophy seems to about trying to shoe-horn the middle-eastern fairytales it obsesses with and of course derives from into the unfolding information we have about the universe.



such as?

Most modern religious philosophy that i know of doesn't do anything of the sort, but do tell.

BTW, since i seem to be getting hopped on here as the lone voice of irrationalism, can I ask those of you who appear to hold that science can explain everything to explain aesthetic experience - liking a piece of music or a movie - or your mood or whatever in some way that doesn't simply reduce the mind to a mechanical model stripped of the 'feel' of consciousness? All I've said is that scientific explanations of certain phenomena that matter to us are simply inappropriate because they remove all traces of freedom from descriptions of our actions and experience, and, even if it is true that we are robots, and free will is an illusion, it doesn't in the end matter because we act as if freedom were possible, and therefore explanations of actions and experience only make sense if described 'as if' we were free. Our language presupposes intentionality and free subjectivity; a language that would describe an entirely deterministic worldview would not be a recognisably human language.

[Macy]

The majority of schools are still owned by the catholic church.
They're not; they're controlled by the church. The state has built most of them, the state funds them, the state then hands over control to the Church to indoctrinate the children, to make moral judgements on whether they employ divorced teachers, gives over time to communion/ confirmation classes etc. All state funded schools should be non denominational, and should not have priests as decision makers on their boards.

[BohsPartisan]

such as?


can I ask those of you who appear to hold that science can explain everything to explain aesthetic experience - liking a piece of music or a movie - or your mood or whatever in some way that doesn't simply reduce the mind to a mechanical model stripped of the 'feel' of consciousness?

Most of these can be explained as evolutionary by products. I'll go into it in greater detail when I'm not so busy. (don't take this as being a determinist arguement)
Also I don't think Science can completely explain everything now. However there was a time when Science couldn't explain lots of things that were once unexplained and attributed to supernatural causes. I doubt human science will ever explain absolutely everything either because our limits are also science's limits. Again this doesn't mean that the supernatural is a substitute for the gaps in our current knowledge.

SoS,
any chance you would provide some arguements for us to actually refute because otherwise its like we're trying to shoot a bat in the dark here.


They're not; they're controlled by the church. The state has built most of them, the state funds them, the state then hands over control to the Church to indoctrinate the children, to make moral judgements on whether they employ divorced teachers, gives over time to communion/ confirmation classes etc.

My mistake. This is even worse!

[sonofstan]

SoS,
any chance you would provide some arguements for us to actually refute because otherwise its like we're trying to shoot a bat in the dark here.




All I'm trying to show is this; Dawkins' argument appears to rest - I'm open to correction - on the premise that religious faith holds certain things to be true that are verifiably impossible on the basis of scientific explanation, and therefore, people who profess religious faith are either stupid or dangerous or both. This rests on the further premise that scientific method is the only means of arriving at any kind of defensible truth.

My argument is this; certain features of ordinary experience, while explicable or potentially explicable scientifically, have aspects which are not open to such explanation, but which appear meaningful to us.

If this is the case, then either a) this apparent meaningfulness will disappear in the light of a future explanation - just as the portentiousness of comets and shooting stars was explained away one they became astronomically comprehensible, or b) there are certain aspects of our experience as rational, embodied creatures that can not be explained in terms of material causation; which further entails c) that, since our explanations of the world are, themselves, aspects of that world, then certain aspects of the world are not amenable to scientific explanation (at least to us). And since we are the only rational creatures we know of, we must either adopt a God's eye view and asssume that in the light of some, non- human reason, it all makes sense, or else admit that reason -or at least our reason - has boundaries. Neither position is comfortable.

If science is not capable of providing us -perhaps ever -with a total explanation of everything, then metaphysics remains at least a defensible human pursuit; it may be wrongheaded in many of its conclusions but it may not deserve the massive condescension of a Dawkins. And I remain an atheist and I have a fairly robust faith in science.

[BohsPartisan]

If science is not capable of providing us -perhaps ever -with a total explanation of everything, then metaphysics remains at least a defensible human pursuit;

Correct me if I'm wrong here. You seem to be saying that If we can't yet explain something scientifically then any fathomable fancy is a substitute for knowledge?
In that case Scientology is as valid a philosophy as christianity, or should I add the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster. Perhaps the idea that all physical reality was created by Satan to defy God and thus should be destroyed is a valid position (And unfortunately that idea is not an invention of mine). Can you see where I am going with this? If its ok to make sht up, why not evil sht (evil used as a concept and not a universal value).

[John83]

Correct me if I'm wrong here. You seem to be saying that If we can't yet explain something scientifically then any fathomable fancy is a substitute for knowledge?
In that case Scientology is as valid a philosophy as christianity, or should I add the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster. Perhaps the idea that all physical reality was created by Satan to defy God and thus should be destroyed is a valid position (And unfortunately that idea is not an invention of mine). Can you see where I am going with this? If its ok to make sht up, why not evil sht (evil used as a concept and not a universal value).
All hail the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster.

[finlma]

They're not; they're controlled by the church.

Not true Macy - the Catholic Church owns most of the land that primary schools in Ireland are built on but the state (somewhat) supports the schools. I'm a primary school teacher and I detest having to teach religion - I try to teach morals rather than anything about a God. Have to give some extra tuition (also known as lies) to the kids on the days the priest or nun is coming in.

[anto1208]

Correct me if I'm wrong here. You seem to be saying that If we can't yet explain something scientifically then any fathomable fancy is a substitute for knowledge?
In that case Scientology is as valid a philosophy as christianity, or should I add the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster. Perhaps the idea that all physical reality was created by Satan to defy God and thus should be destroyed is a valid position (And unfortunately that idea is not an invention of mine). Can you see where I am going with this? If its ok to make sht up, why not evil sht (evil used as a concept and not a universal value).



I think all he is saying is that we shouldn’t totally rule something out just because at the moment we cant prove / disprove it , as there are many many things that defy logic and cant be proven it doesn’t mean they don’t exist . collective consciousness ( I’ve no idea if that’s how you spell ) for example.

Or what I spend lots of time thinking about is where does the will to live come from , to explain it now you can say it’s a by product of evolution , but what made the very first bacteria want to survive ? why have tiny particles from an explosion billions of years ago joined together to create planets and life forms why does this keep happening if something isn’t either controlling it or pre-programming this to keep happening .

[Lionel Ritchie]

All hail the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster.

Blasphemy!!! Ancient texts written 300 years after the fact then translated from aramaic into greek and from there into middle-German during the 16th century confirm it is NOT a mere rooster but a C0ck!!!

All hail the C0ck!!!! :eek:






I don't like this religion anymore:(

I guess the rooster being a C0ck was one of those important things we don't want to know.

[BohsPartisan]

I think all he is saying is that we shouldn’t totally rule something out just because at the moment we cant prove / disprove it ,

But why just make something up to fill the gap in knowledge? Why not just say, we don't understand such and such at this point in time but we hope to understand it sometime in the future?
This wouldn't be such a big issue if there weren't so many people around the world believing things that they have never thought about why they believe them and if these beliefs didn't have such a hold upon billions of people.

[sonofstan]

Correct me if I'm wrong here. You seem to be saying that If we can't yet explain something scientifically then any fathomable fancy is a substitute for knowledge?
In that case Scientology is as valid a philosophy as christianity, or should I add the Flying Spaghetti Monster or the Invisible Earth Supporting Rooster. Perhaps the idea that all physical reality was created by Satan to defy God and thus should be destroyed is a valid position (And unfortunately that idea is not an invention of mine). Can you see where I am going with this? If its ok to make sht up, why not evil sht (evil used as a concept and not a universal value).


No I'm not. What I'm saying is that Metaphysics - by which I mean 'thoughts of a resolving closure between self and world' - are possible; such thoughts are as subject to Occam's razor as any other. If the self is not entirely explained by nature, and nature is not simply an idealist fantasy of the self, then some kind of ground which can explain both seems worth thinking about. Any such thoughts need to be internally consistent and it seems likely that - Occam's razor - law of logical dependence and inference, as well as physical possibility should hold for this ground - or for the relation between this ground and that which it grounds; part of which is the physical world. But you can have your rooster if you want.

[BohsPartisan]

All hail the C0ck!!!! :eek:








Aww now you've gone and turned it into yet another phallocentric belief system. Maybe I'll start worshipping the Mother Chicken instead. (The great prophet BP foresees a schism in his new religion based on the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg and simultaniously forsees the answer - the chicken and the egg are eternal beings co-existing seperately and in unity all at once)

[anto1208]

But why just make something up to fill the gap in knowledge? Why not just say, we don't understand such and such at this point in time but we hope to understand it sometime in the future?
This wouldn't be such a big issue if there weren't so many people around the world believing things that they have never thought about why they believe them and if these beliefs didn't have such a hold upon billions of people.


F**k knows why people do anything :D

[sonofstan]

Aww now you've gone and turned it into yet another phallocentric belief system. Maybe I'll start worshipping the Mother Chicken instead. (The great prophet BP foresees a schism in his new religion based on the question of which came first, the chicken or the egg and simultaniously forsees the answer - the chicken and the egg are eternal beings co-existing seperately and in unity all at once)


Time and space are forms of intuition according to Kant - they don't have any existence outside our understanding - if that's any help .....

[pineapple stu]

Similarly the idea of a giant invisible rooster holding the earth up can't be disproved and its just as valid as the idea of god.
I'll give you 100 Euro if you can disprove my rooster hypothesis.
I'm confused by the point you're trying to make with your rooster hypothesis.

We've been to space and looked back at the earth from afar (from the moon, for example), and can see that there's no rooster. We've also flown satellites around the earth for the past 60 years or so which orbit very regularly. If the rooster existed and were invisible, chances are one of the satellites would have hit him, which we would have seen. If he's big enough to hold up the earth, his gravity would also cause calculation problems as we know (from scientific fact) that gravitational can be calculated anywhere in the universe, which doesn't allow for the possibility of an earth-sized rooster sitting under our planet.

So it can't be seen, can't be felt and can't be detected using scientifically proven mathematical formulae. Sounds like he doesn't exist.

Can I PM you my bank details or would you rather send a cheque? ;)

[sonofstan]

I'm confused by the point you're trying to make with your rooster hypothesis.

We've been to space and looked back at the earth from afar (from the moon, for example), and can see that there's no rooster. We've also flown satellites around the earth for the past 60 years or so which orbit very regularly. If the rooster existed and were invisible, chances are one of the satellites would have hit him, which we would have seen. If he's big enough to hold up the earth, his gravity would also cause calculation problems as we know (from scientific fact) that gravitational can be calculated anywhere in the universe, which doesn't allow for the possibility of an earth-sized rooster sitting under our planet.

So it can't be seen, can't be felt and can't be detected using scientifically proven mathematical formulae. Sounds like he doesn't exist.

Can I PM you my bank details or would you rather send a cheque? ;)

Maybe he's light years away and he's holding us up by sheer will. Or he's actually a very small but very strong rooster.

[pineapple stu]

Touché.

Nonsense will always find a way over proof!

What do athiests make of Jesus, incidentally?

[John83]

Touché.

Nonsense will always find a way over proof!

What do athiests make of Jesus, incidentally?
I doubt there's consensus, but I've read a number of people suggest that he did exist, was a reformist jewish religious figure and was later misrepresented by people who'd never even met him (like St Paul and the gospel writers).

[micls]

What do athiests make of Jesus, incidentally?

He existed alright. Probably a very intelligent man who's legacy was like a game of Chinese whispres. The gospels weren't written till 60-100 years after he died so i think its just a case of it being blown out of proportion.


Also important to remember that nowhere is it written that Jesus called himself the Son of God.....he called himself the Son of Man. Others gave him thta title.He probably thought 'Hey i can work with this' and off he went :D

[finlma]

What do athiests make of Jesus, incidentally?

There most likely was a person who went by the name of Jesus who claimed to be the son of God. But just like the school ground games of Chinese Whispers the stories about him grew arms and legs.

If you want to find out about just how quickly religion can spread and develop read the story of John Frum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum). I believe something similar caused the phenomenon of Christianity.

For years and years creationists claimed that God put man on the earth but then when evolution came along they changed to say God put the first bacteria on earth and allowed it to develop into humans. Seems like he is one lazy God or else that bacteria arrived by chance and one day we will know how that chance occured.

[Lionel Ritchie]

Touché.

Nonsense will always find a way over proof!

What do athiests make of Jesus, incidentally?

I think it most likely he existed but that the evolved story of his background is well wide of the mark. I also think it's at least a decent possibility that he survived cruxifiction (-wasn't at all uncommon) and that this gave rise to the "well he rose from the dead therefore he MUST be the messiah" story. Wouldn't be the last time those of a religious bent tried to tack unfolding events onto scripture.

If I could go back in time and speak with him I think I would break some unleavened bread, make sure both our cups runneth over (ah ...Galilean reserve ...9BC ...not too shabby) and verily I would say unto him "Jez mate -next time a Roman governer asks you a straight question -you give him a straight fcukin answer -cappish?"

They didn't get to rule half the known world by being magnanimous with the local Love-your-brother-hippy-weirdo-freaks.

[pineapple stu]

I also think it's at least a decent possibility that he survived cruxifiction (-wasn't at all uncommon)
I fail to see how you could survive crucifixion, to be honest. For a start, you're not going anywhere, so if all comes to all, you die of starvation/thirst or of infection from the nails in your skin. Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion#Cause_of_death) notes only one instance of survival, and even that was someone who was taken down from the cross (two other people died of their injuries even after being taken down - also noted on forteamtimes.com (http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/183_jesuseast3.shtml)). Josephus is an ancient historian who is considered fairly reliable in his reporting.

My understanding also is that if you weren't dead by sunset, they'd break your legs or something similar, causing extra injuries to kill you. In Jesus' case, he is reported to have had a spear thrust into his side (causing the hole which he later, on resurrection, asked Doubting Thomas to insert his hand into to believe that he was the risen Christ).

Given that it was used as a way of killing large numbers of people and setting an example as to who was boss (the Spartacus slave rebellion being a good example), I find it unlikely that it wouldn't have been "at all uncommon" to survive it.

In addition, I think a lot is being made of the fact that the Gospels were written 60-100 years after his death. Back then, with no telly, internet, radio, print, etc., oral histories were the only ones possible to keep, and learning by rote was a very common part of education, with emphasis being on complete accuracy (think Muslims learning the Qoran now, or Jews studying for their Bar Mitzvah). So it would be absolutely possible for his stories to come down 60 years - a mere two generations - without significant alteration.

I'm not arguing the case either way here - just exploring some of the points. My own view is summed up by a post by Student Mullet earlier, which is that even if you acknowledge that we evolved (as it seems rather likely we did) from the primordial soup, that still doesn't answer the question of what the primordial soup was doing in the first place. I think it's also important to distinguish between the question of God's existence and religion, as the latter has quite clearly been abused throughout history for personal financial gain at the expense of the simple individual, whereas the former is a simple question of faith. So you can be critical of organised religion while still maintaining a belief in God.

[Macy]

Not true Macy - the Catholic Church owns most of the land that primary schools in Ireland are built on but the state (somewhat) supports the schools.
Owns the land but who built the schools and who pays your salary? I doubt the Church, locally or nationally contributes anything to salaries. And any other contributions, apart from moral judgements, is fundraising rather than out of the billions stashed. Lest we forget, most of the land was actually donated for schools by lay people.

[BohsPartisan]

I'm confused by the point you're trying to make with your rooster hypothesis.

We've been to space and looked back at the earth from afar (from the moon, for example), and can see that there's no rooster. We've also flown satellites around the earth for the past 60 years or so which orbit very regularly. If the rooster existed and were invisible, chances are one of the satellites would have hit him, which we would have seen. If he's big enough to hold up the earth, his gravity would also cause calculation problems as we know (from scientific fact) that gravitational can be calculated anywhere in the universe, which doesn't allow for the possibility of an earth-sized rooster sitting under our planet.

So it can't be seen, can't be felt and can't be detected using scientifically proven mathematical formulae. Sounds like he doesn't exist.

Can I PM you my bank details or would you rather send a cheque? ;)


That still doesn't prove he's not there. For one I didn't say what size he is - he's normal Rooster sized, and you can't see him, for as I said, he's invisible. He's extremely nimble, able to dodge sattelites and the like. He is quite strong but as it turns out the earth is not as heavy as we previously thought. It was just made to seem heavy to test our faith in the rooster, the mother chicken and the egg.


So it would be absolutely possible for his stories to come down 60 years - a mere two generations - without significant alteration.



We were having a conversation at break the other day. There was a good few of us and I was telling a story about something I overheard. A person who was on the far side of the table completely misheard me and went off and told a similar but crucially different story to someone else. See what I'm getting at? If that happened in the space of 5 minutes, imagine how much a story can change over 100 years. Biblical stories have the same validity of say, The Ulster Cycle or the Fenian Cycle. The stories were probably based on some real life events but were embelleshed as they were passed down through the generations. Not only that but there are significant differences between the four gospels that are in the new testament. Add to this all the other gospels that didn't make the final cut (Judas, Thomas, Mary Magdelene etc.) and you have a very confusing mish mash of different stories supposedly about the same person.

[anto1208]

I'm confused by the point you're trying to make with your rooster hypothesis.

We've been to space and looked back at the earth from afar (from the moon, for example), and can see that there's no rooster. We've also flown satellites around the earth for the past 60 years or so which orbit very regularly. If the rooster existed and were invisible, chances are one of the satellites would have hit him, which we would have seen. If he's big enough to hold up the earth, his gravity would also cause calculation problems as we know (from scientific fact) that gravitational can be calculated anywhere in the universe, which doesn't allow for the possibility of an earth-sized rooster sitting under our planet.

;)

and can see that there's no rooster: he is invisible :D

Satellites go off course and get damaged in space all the time , he might be very small just very strong :D

[Poor Student]

Josephus is an ancient historian who is considered fairly reliable in his reporting.


Actually, he's not that reliable, especially his more personal anecdotes. That piece could be total b.s. and he could simply have been trying to get across how he was in great favour with the future emperor Titus.

[pineapple stu]

He's fairly reliable, I said, which allows for some personal histories. Also, it was inherent in the qualification that it was fairly reliable for a historian, a lot of whom (even now) have their own agendas. Certainly, a scholarly enough book I read recently on Palestine at that time quoted extensively from Josephus, and seemed quite happy to do so once some foibles (such as you mentioned) were pointed out. That's usually the way with ancient history. Once you read between the lines, histories become a lot more reliable.

In any case, the story quoted wasn't written by Josephus to show how people survive a crucifixion; it was possibly written to relate a story, or show how nice a guy he was or some such. The incidental facts - i.e. that this is a very rare case of someone surviving crucifixion, and even then he was taken down from the cross, and even then two others still died - are still valid in showing that it wasn't common at all to survive crucifixion.

In other words, he's about as reliable as you can hope for.


A person who was on the far side of the table completely misheard me and went off and told a similar but crucially different story to someone else. See what I'm getting at? If that happened in the space of 5 minutes, imagine how much a story can change over 100 years.
You missed my point though. Jesus' work wouldn't have just been another pub story - people would have seen it and been influenced by it. So first off, the stories wouldn't have been heard off the bat and subsequently made up, and secondly, I pointed out that in a society which relies on oral communications almost exclusively, and in which great stock is placed in the learning by rote of stories, you can't compare purple-monkey-dishwasher stories of today to what would have happened back then.

(Which isn't to say it didn't happen; just that you can't deduce what would have happened by comparing it to modern behaviour)

[Schumi]

Jesus' work wouldn't have just been another pub story - people would have seen it and been influenced by it.And therefore been more likely to exaggerate and embellish it.

[pineapple stu]

Again though, you're ignoring the stock in oral word, learning by rote, etc, etc.

[Poor Student]

He's fairly reliable, I said, which allows for some personal histories. Also, it was inherent in the qualification that it was fairly reliable for a historian, a lot of whom (even now) have their own agendas. Certainly, a scholarly enough book I read recently on Palestine at that time quoted extensively from Josephus, and seemed quite happy to do so once some foibles (such as you mentioned) were pointed out. That's usually the way with ancient history. Once you read between the lines, histories become a lot more reliable.

In any case, the story quoted wasn't written by Josephus to show how people survive a crucifixion; it was possibly written to relate a story, or show how nice a guy he was or some such. The incidental facts - i.e. that this is a very rare case of someone surviving crucifixion, and even then he was taken down from the cross, and even then two others still died - are still valid in showing that it wasn't common at all to survive crucifixion.

In other words, he's about as reliable as you can hope for.


I wasn't disputing your general point, just your claim that he's a fairly reliable historian. He happens to be the only major Jewish historian at the time. He wrote multiple works which contradict each other and the rare time there is opportunity to compare his work with something else, there are also discrepancies. It's debateable whether he's even fairly reliable. He's usually quoted at length when discussing 1st century AD Palestine as there's no other options. Actual scholarly books are very sceptical about his reliability. However, I can't access the rest of that article or even the page you linked anymore, but if one possible anecdote of Josephus (which may well be entirely fictional) sees only two out of three people survive a crucifixion then that's hardly entirely indicative of the general survival rate of crucifixions.:confused:

[pineapple stu]

It sees one person survive a crucifixion, out of three who had all been taken off the cross. That's the only indicence I can find on (an admittedly quick search of) the entire internet. The one case reported by Josephus is repeatedly mentioned as about the only recorded instance of it. That's more my point. It appears that if you leave someone up there, they die. No two ways about it. Especially if a spear is subsequently stuck into your side.

[BohsPartisan]

you can't compare purple-monkey-dishwasher stories

That Purple Monkey Dishwasher is a false idol I tell you. Praise be the rooster!


So first off, the stories wouldn't have been heard off the bat and subsequently made up, and secondly, I pointed out that in a society which relies on oral communications almost exclusively, and in which great stock is placed in the learning by rote of stories

So how do you explain a few hundred different versions of the same story? Even the official gospels can't agree on certain key episodes.

[pineapple stu]

I don't think there are a few hundred versions of the story.

On a related topic, I see James Cameron is now claiming he's found Jesus' tomb (http://www.examiner.ie/irishexaminer/pages/story.aspx-qqqg=world-qqqm=world-qqqa=world-qqqid=26490-qqqx=1.asp). It was on the front page of the Examiner today. No idea how he's worked that out, but there you go.

[Poor Student]

That's the only indicence I can find on (an admittedly quick search of) the entire internet.

Well that's not really good enough. We don't actually know what Lionel was saying, whether he meant people being rescued or what. Perhaps his claim has no backing, I'd wait and see how he claims this before trying to refute it.

[pineapple stu]

His claim appeared clear enough. He said it "wasn't at all uncommon" to survive crucifixion, and used this as the basis for a theory on the resurrection (i.e. that he was around for 40 days afterwards because he never died on the cross in the first place). This appears to be groundless in the absence of any more evidence of people not dying on the cross.

However, I agree we should wait for his answer. That's my context anyway.

[anto1208]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6397373.stm :D


James cameron has found jesus must be true ;)