Why the state must stop funding faith schools

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Chunderer,

There is no "standard bluehillside category error" (a term you've never understood by the way) and no it isn't. If you seriously think that personal intuition is a reliable guide to an objective truth for the rest of us, then you have no choice but to accept the same "method" for any other claim of objective truth.

That you may want to garland the claim with characteristics downstream of the notion that personal intuition is a reliable guide to objective truth is a separate matter that fails in any case on its own terms, but it has nothing to do with the original contention about intuition.     

And again you make the same epic error as always. The point is that the argument for god and the FSM - ie, personal intuition - is the same, not that the eventual details of the outcome of that argument are the same.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

You said it...

If it's invisible or impervious to empirical measurement, how can we know that it's concerned with human affairs, merciful, vengeful, in thrall to chucking thunderbolts around or any other of the countless claims you and others make for this god?

You can't have it both ways: either you can make claims about the properties of this god (in which case you can make claims about the properties of the FSM) or you can't (in which case you can make claims about neither).

Which one do you plump for?

yes there are problems with your comparisons Hillside.

You are trying to say that the ineffability of God is the problem. It isn't really....the problem is you trying to say that spaghetti is ineffable or leprechauns or unicorns!

As I say category f*** upon category f***

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Not really - there are lots of words like that, and either we endlessly stick to strict, classical definitions or we roll with it for the sake of easy discourse. People almost invariably say "anticipate" when they actually mean "expect" for example (and indeed they use "invariably" when they actually mean "usually") but for the sake of normal conversation I generally accept the usage the author seems to intend rather than pull them up on strict definitions.

Having said that, Vlad in particular seems to have a set of meanings all of his own for commonplace words - "feelings" for example - but until he finally provides a Vladdish/English dictionary to help out, the rest of us have little choice but to use the actual meanings nonetheless.

This has nothing to do with Vlad and if you want to use objective to mean what lots of people believe then you are not just using an ad populum but using it it a particular strong manner.

[Gordon]

It does seem to be the case that some here want to place the NT documents at as far a distance from the events as possible, and when they do so they make it very obvious that this then disqualifies them as eye-witness accounts - so, yes, there does appear to be a deliberate attempt to exaggerate.

The point here surely is that the only sensible approach is to accept what those who have studied this have proposed, so that personal opinion or preference becomes irrelevant. Here is a wiki-page that gives a summary of dates for biblical books, and give the earliest date of 51CE for 1 Thessalonians, 68-70CE for the earliest Gospel (Mark) and 90-110CE for the last Gospel (John).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

So, do you dispute these dates? If not then we can work on the basis that the earliest Gospel wasn't written until 30+ years after the alleged death of Jesus and the earliest letter is around 20 years later - so plenty of time for human fallibility to have an effect.
 

As you suggest, making mistakes and telling lies is a known human behaviour.  The risk of your position is at exactly the same condition as the situation you are claiming is with ours.
As you've been told before, there is a methodology - except that, because it is suited to the non-physical aspect of nature that is what you call the supernatural, it doesn't work with the mindset that you have.

Pish and piffle!

If you are saying that the 'methodology' you've used here is dependent on your 'mindset' then, to be frank, you don't have a 'method' at all. Your approach opens the door to fallacy central - so say hello to Mr Confirmation Bias, Mrs Argument from Authority (and her son named 'Tradition'), good old Special Pleading (rascal though he is) and everyone's favourite old-codger, who is of course dear old Uncle Personal Incredulity (who you need to be very wary of for he is very persuasive)!

[Outrider]

Yet studies also show that pre-literate cultures had linguistic mechanisms by which to stabilise stories and details.  Hebrew is often given as an examplar languageof this.

Themes, yes, that thematic nature is one of the reasons, its suggested, that Hebrew as a language is relatively stable by comparison with other languages from the region. That's only a relative measure, mind.

That consistency over time is why the current interpretation of ancient Hebrew documents can be considered to be relatively reliable despite cultural changes in the intervening period.

However, none of that suggests that precise detail is well retained, and the investigative work by sociologists and anthropologists reliably indicated that even pre-literate cultures do not have some sort of savant talent for perfect recall.

O.

[Outrider]

Again, as I've pointed out in an earlier post this evening, the flimsy nature of the alternative explanations suggests that the 'traditional' ones aren't as unviable as some here would have us believe.

Firstly, there's no reason to produce an alternate explanation for events that we have no real reason to think ever happened at all, but even if elements of them did any explanation is more viable than magic.

Secondly, there is experience - something that even scientists rely on as one form of confirmation; thirdly, there is study such as Biblical criticism and theology, history and linguistics.

Scientists don't rely on experience in isolation - scientists have demonstrated in any number of different ways how unreliable human experience can be. It's an indicator, but nothing more than that, and nothing but the most basic claims would be considered validated purely by a claim of human experience.

Biblical criticism starts and ends with: you have an author with a vested interest and no external validation - that makes your source questionable at best. Theology is the art of tangling complex linguistics into knots to try to obviate the obvious nonsense in claims about God. History and linguistics do nothing to support Biblical claims - Old Testament or New - whatsoever.

Not to mention supporters of science making such comments as 'science doesn't deal in right and wrong'.

It doesn't make a judgment on whether believing in God is morally right or wrong, no, but it does make a judgment on whether making claims about the nature of reality are justified: claims of gods are not justified.

O.

[Hope]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible

Interestingly, the material I've been working from was also published on wikipedia.  I'll look it out, as I printed it out about a year ago, and it is on my wall in front of the computer. (Seem to remember that I'd have posted the link on a thread back then).  Your link provides some earlier dates for the 'Earliest Known Fragment', as well as a few earlier 'Dates determined by scholars' to the one I have.

http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Dating_the_Bible (It's a similar layout to the wikipedia page, but gives somewhat different dates to the one you give.

So, do you dispute these dates? If not then we can work on the basis that the earliest Gospel wasn't written until 30+ years after the alleged death of Jesus and the earliest letter is around 20 years later - so plenty of time for human fallibility to have an effect.

So, no I don't dispute the dates in your link, scholars do.
 

If you are saying that the 'methodology' you've used here is dependent on your 'mindset' then, to be frank, you don't have a 'method' at all. Your approach opens the door to fallacy central - so say hello to Mr Confirmation Bias, Mrs Argument from Authority (and her son named 'Tradition'), good old Special Pleading (rascal though he is) and everyone's favourite old-codger, who is of course dear old Uncle Personal Incredulity (who you need to be very wary of for he is very persuasive)!

I would disagree with your suggestion that my " ... approach opens the door to fallacy central."  Rather, it asks the question of what reality is.  Is reality ONLY to do with the physical, scientific world, or is there more to it.

Its perhaps worth noting that reality, even within the 'physical, scientific world', isn't static.  For instance; reality, here in the UK, is that the national speed limit is 70mph; the reality in Germany is that it is 130kph (just shy of 81mph).

Similarly, the reality is that light is a wave, but also a particle.  As I understand it, which it is depoends on one's viewpoint. 

[Hope]

Firstly, there's no reason to produce an alternate explanation for events that we have no real reason to think ever happened at all, but even if elements of them did any explanation is more viable than magic.

That, of course, assumes that the natural physical is the only aspect of reality, O.

Scientists don't rely on experience in isolation - ...

I didn't suggest that they do; nor did I suggest that any Christian does.

Biblical criticism starts and ends with: you have an author with a vested interest and no external validation - that makes your source questionable at best.

Shows how limited your understanding of Biblical criticism is - it is far wider than that very narrow summary

Theology is the art of tangling complex linguistics into knots to try to obviate the obvious nonsense in claims about God. History and linguistics do nothing to support Biblical claims - Old Testament or New - whatsoever.

Again, theology covers far more than your simplistic summary.

It doesn't make a judgment on whether believing in God is morally right or wrong, no, but it does make a judgment on whether making claims about the nature of reality are justified: claims of gods are not justified.

Again, only if reality can be proven to be purely naturalistically physical.

[Outrider]

Rather, it asks the question of what reality is.  Is reality ONLY to do with the physical, scientific world, or is there more to it.

So far as we can tell, yes. If you have a methodology for verifying other elements, go ahead and present it, but we both know that's been asked before and you don't have one.

Its perhaps worth noting that reality, even within the 'physical, scientific world', isn't static.  For instance; reality, here in the UK, is that the national speed limit is 70mph; the reality in Germany is that it is 130kph (just shy of 81mph).

Both of those are cultural artifacts, not natural laws - science does not 'discover' the output of cultures, at best (and unfortunately too rarely) it informs them.

Similarly, the reality is that light is a wave, but also a particle.  As I understand it, which it is depoends on one's viewpoint.

Not exactly - it's light. At times it's helpful to think of it acting as a wave, because of the behaviour it exhibits, and times it's helpful to think of it as a particle. This is because we have models that are simplifications of the actuality to enable us to more quickly determine likely outcomes where the simplifications don't affect the outcome.

O.

[Hope]

By the way, here's another list of dates for the NT books from a US University site

http://www.athabascau.ca/courses/rels/204/dates.htm

[Gordon]

http://research.omicsgroup.org/index.php/Dating_the_Bible (It's a similar layout to the wikipedia page, but gives somewhat different dates to the one you give.
So, no I don't dispute the dates in your link, scholars do.

O.K. - we'll go with your link, which places the date ranges at 60-70CE (Mark), 60-90CE (Luke), 70-110 (Matthew) and 80-95CE (John) as the earlier. Even so, and using the information in your link, it still seems like there is a minimum gap of approaching 30 years post-hoc, during which time any changes in the details during re-telling over that length of time are unknown. Even then this doesn't address the risks that the original stories (prior to any re-telling) might involve mistakes or lies.

Seems to me then that the NT accounts involve too many risks and uncertainties to be considered as being reliable.   

I would disagree with your suggestion that my " ... approach opens the door to fallacy central."  Rather, it asks the question of what reality is.  Is reality ONLY to do with the physical, scientific world, or is there more to it.

Its perhaps worth noting that reality, even within the 'physical, scientific world', isn't static.  For instance; reality, here in the UK, is that the national speed limit is 70mph; the reality in Germany is that it is 130kph (just shy of 81mph).

Don't be silly - all you've cited here is the difference between two regulations that have been determined locally by people legislating on traffic management: this is no more relevant than saying that some horses are grey and others aren't. So, and apart from it being an embarrassingly simplistic analogy, I can't see that it in any sense this helps your argument that there is some 'other' form of reality.

Similarly, the reality is that light is a wave, but also a particle.  As I understand it, which it is depoends on one's viewpoint.

So? That physicists have investigated light and described it as having various properties is in what way relevant to this discussion?   

[Outrider]

O.K. - we'll go with your link, which places the date ranges at 60-70CE (Mark), 60-90CE (Luke), 70-110 (Matthew) and 80-95CE (John) as the earlier. Even so, and using the information in your link, it still seems like there is a minimum gap of approaching 30 years post-hoc, during which time any changes in the details during re-telling over that length of time are unknown. Even then this doesn't address the risks that the original stories (prior to any re-telling) might involve mistakes or lies.

Assuming, for the moment, that there genuinely were a group of apostles following Jesus around...

It was extremely unusual for someone of the era to live beyond 50 - those are figures from Romans of the era, but they are representative of the level of health care and the like of the times. ('Average' lifespans of the time are considerably lower, but are skewed significantly by infant mortality). Given that the various followers of Jesus were professionals at the time of meeting him they'd likely be in their late twenties to early thirties at the time, which means they'd all be extraordinarily old (for the time) by the time the Gospels were written.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

O.K. - we'll go with your link, which places the date ranges at 60-70CE (Mark), 60-90CE (Luke), 70-110 (Matthew) and 80-95CE (John) as the earlier. Even so, and using the information in your link, it still seems like there is a minimum gap of approaching 30 years post-hoc, during which time any changes in the details during re-telling over that length of time are unknown. Even then this doesn't address the risks that the original stories (prior to any re-telling) might involve mistakes or lies.

Seems to me then that the NT accounts involve too many risks and uncertainties to be considered as being reliable.   

Don't be silly - all you've cited here is the difference between two regulations that have been determined locally by people legislating on traffic management: this is no more relevant than saying that some horses are grey and others aren't. So, and apart from it being an embarrassingly simplistic analogy, I can't see that it in any sense this helps your argument that there is some 'other' form of reality.

So? That physicists have investigated light and described it as having various properties is in what way relevant to this discussion?

Why have you excluded the epistles which also form a record of what was believed and who believed it?

[floo]

Why have you excluded the epistles which also form a record of what was believed and who believed it?

Just because people believe something to be true doesn't mean it is!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

This has nothing to do with Vlad and if you want to use objective to mean what lots of people believe then you are not just using an ad populum but using it it a particular strong manner.

Well, perhaps. I do try to be as nice as I can to Vlad (“nice” meaning “kind”, rather than the original “foolish”) but frankly I find his myriad (“myriad” meaning “lots”, rather than the original “10,000” specifically) efforts to be so egregious (meaning “bad” rather than the original “distinguished”) that it’s hard sometimes to do.

Frankly I find his dishonesty to be awful (meaning “terrible” rather than the original “full of awe” – and for that matter “terrible” meaning “lousy” rather than the original “invoking terror”) and his attempts at reasoning so hard to fathom (“fathom” meaning “understand” rather than the original “encircle”) that he’d be better advised at least giving us a clue (meaning “hint” rather than “ball of yarn”) if he expects a measured response.

Let’s be generous though and limit ourselves to calling him naughty (meaning rude or badly behaved rather than the original “having nothing”) – after all, he really can’t help himself it seems.

Incidentally, that's not what an ad pop entails in any case. In inductive logic if, say, 90% prefer cheese and onion to salt an vinegar crisps then there's a better than even chance that the next person asked will prefer the former too. Same with words - their meanings can shift over time according to usage: if 99% think that "anticipate" actually means "expect", then eventually that becomes its meaning and the original is lost.       

[Hope]

Just because people believe something to be true doesn't mean it is!

Precisely, Floo.  Which is in part why I don't believe the stuff that you and others here are so keen to mnake reality out to be - purely naturalistically physical.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Just because people believe something to be true doesn't mean it is!

Or mean it isn't. The point here is that Gordon widens the gap between the events in order to accommodate his Chinese whispers theory.

Orthodoxy was established within two decades.

[Shaker]

Ah, bluey, bluey, bluey. A man after my own heart in so many respects ... as a bit of a stickler I do occasionally take a stand over trying to rescue the proper distinction between disinterested and uninterested, say, or the proper meaning of 'begging the question' but it's a largely futile endeavour.

All of which is entirely off-topic but there's no chance of keeping me out of a discussion on the English language and its usage, even if it is a digression.

[Gordon]

Why have you excluded the epistles which also form a record of what was believed and who believed it?

In my earlier post I mention I Thessalonians as being the earliest bit of the NT (at 50/1CE) so there is a minimum gap of approaching 20 years - plenty of time then for errors to creep in, and even then this says nothing about whether the very earliest oral accounts were free of mistakes or lies. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,
 

Incidentally, that's not what an ad pop entails in any case. In inductive logic if, say, 90% prefer cheese and onion to salt an vinegar crisps then there's a better than even chance that the next person asked will prefer the former too. Same with words - their meanings can shift over time according to usage: if 99% think that "anticipate" actually means "expect", then eventually that becomes its meaning and the original is lost.     

As said this has nothing to do with Vlad so no need for him to be covered here.

As to the relevant bit, I wasn't clear it would seem, I'm not saying that words don't change, though I think we are using objective here in a technical sense and in philosophic terms and that it retains the specific meaning  that does not equate to intersubjectivity. Further the ad pop point is not about word meaning but that if it is things are objective because most people think something then that is reifying ad pop as methodology.

[Outrider]

Or mean it isn't. The point here is that Gordon widens the gap between the events in order to accommodate his Chinese whispers theory.

Orthodoxy was established within two decades.

The Moron church orthodoxy was established within two decades, and they had documentary evidence that their founder a) existed and b) was a con-man. I don't think that Christian orthodoxy in a relatively uncritical setting establishing an orthodoxy in the same time-frame is claiming very much.

Creating an orthodoxy isn't difficult, it's the start point of a creation given that at the moment of creation of the story everyone who knows believes the same things.

O.

[Gordon]

Or mean it isn't. The point here is that Gordon widens the gap between the events in order to accommodate his Chinese whispers theory.

No I didn't.

In my earlier post (and in my most recent one) I did mention 1Thessalonians as being the earliest in the NT and cited the link I used, and when Hope posted another link I then cited the dates in that for the 4 Gospels - I didn't cite 1Thessalonians because the difference between the two links was just 1 year (50CE and 51CE).

[bluehillside Retd.]

Chunderer,

yes there are problems with your comparisons Hillside.

You are trying to say that the ineffability of God is the problem. It isn't really....the problem is you trying to say that spaghetti is ineffable or leprechauns or unicorns!

As I say category f*** upon category f***

Aw bless – and still you blunder into the mistake of your own making about category error. C’mere a minute – no, closer than that…Comfy? OK, now I want you really, really to concentrate just for a bit until this finally sinks in.

OK then. Let’s say that Fred claims that not walking on the cracks in the pavement increases the chances of Arsenal winning.

Still with me? Righto…

Now let’s say that Mary claims that not walking on the cracks in the pavement keeps her bad dreams away.

Now Arsenal winning and not having bad dreams are different categories of experience right? Yes indeedy they are. Here’s the thing though: the two claims that not walking on cracks in the pavement can affect future events are precisely the same category of claim.   

Still with me? Good – hang in there, we’re nearly done now…

So, on the one hand you seem to think for some reason known only to yourself that your personal “intuition” about a god is a reliable guide to an objective truth for the rest of us, yet you deny exactly the same category of claim – personal intuition as a reliable guide to something else (ie, the FSM) to someone else. Even if you think the outcomes of this process to be in different categories, that’s neither here nor there – the point rather is that the process in both cases is one and the same.

I really can’t think of a plainer way of explaining this to you. If you continue to career off the rails with your misunderstanding of category error though, there’s not much more I can do for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I didn't.

In my earlier post (and in my most recent one) I did mention 1Thessalonians as being the earliest in the NT and cited the link I used, and when Hope posted another link I then cited the dates in that for the 4 Gospels - I didn't cite 1Thessalonians because the difference between the two links was just 1 year (50CE and 51CE).

Which is 17 or 18 years after the event talking to established communities.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Shakes,

Ah, bluey, bluey, bluey. A man after my own heart in so many respects ... as a bit of a stickler I do occasionally take a stand over trying to rescue the proper distinction between disinterested and uninterested, say, or the proper meaning of 'begging the question' but it's a largely futile endeavour.

All of which is entirely off-topic but there's no chance of keeping me out of a discussion on the English language and its usage, even if it is a digression.

Hey, you're talking to man who puts semi-colons in texts so I'd give you a run for your money on hopeless sticklerism I think. For some reason I've found myself shouting at the radio recently every time someone tells me that a river has burst its banks - rivers almost never "burst" their banks, they just overflow them but the different use has it seems become a commonplace.   

[Hope]

It was extremely unusual for someone of the era to live beyond 50 - those are figures from Romans of the era, but they are representative of the level of health care and the like of the times. ('Average' lifespans of the time are considerably lower, but are skewed significantly by infant mortality). Given that the various followers of Jesus were professionals at the time of meeting him they'd likely be in their late twenties to early thirties at the time, which means they'd all be extraordinarily old (for the time) by the time the Gospels were written.

O.

OK, O, let's take the fishermen amongst the apostles: we are told that they were working with their father and other relatives when Jesus called them - so that would suggest that your lower age limit is somewhat inflated - I'd suggest that they could have been aged anywhere between 14 and their mid-twenties (otherwise they would have been referred to as having their own businesses, not working with father).  I say 14, because the majority of Jewish boys would have attended what we would regard as primary school, up to the age of 12 or 13, and would then have gone out into the world of work.  We are also told that Peter had a mother-in-law (Matthew , so realistically I'd be surprised if he was as young as 14.  There is no mention of any children, so either his wife died in childbirth and he never remarried, or he was young.  So, let's say he was mid-twenties when Jesus called him.  By the time Jesus died, he would have been in his late 20's and by the time the first two Gospels were being written he would have been around 50.  Remember that just because something was 'published' on a given date doesn't mean it couldn't have been written, or at least in draft form, before then.