|
|
Post by sankari on Mar 7, 2012 7:55:13 GMT
Why do you want to 'hurt' John Loftus? I didn't say that I did. I simply offered my opinion about the best way to do it, and I think it would be a far more merciful approach than throwing darts at him. I'm not a Universalist. I don't believe God loves everyone. I appreciate what you're saying. The problem with people like Loftus is that they're like the black dwarves in the Narnia books. No matter what you do, there's no way to win them over. The only option is to keep returning their volleys, but with intelligence rather than rancour. |
|
Mike D
Master of the Arts
Posts: 204
|
Post by Mike D on Mar 7, 2012 8:22:28 GMT
I probably shouldn't go making attempted (and failed) humorous remarks about throwing darts at Loftus. Mea culpa.
|
|
|
|
Post by jamierobertson on Mar 7, 2012 17:46:07 GMT
Why do you want to 'hurt' John Loftus? Isn't he a person God loves just the same as you and me? I do believe God loves him, but agape includes looking out for what's best for the group. Jesus and Paul, amongst others, could be stinging in the sarcastic criticism of those who deserved it, as was the style of the time. Of course one can go too far, and anyone can change and be forgiven - but there are cases where ridicule is appropriate IMO. (Note - I don't mean ridiculing someone for their beliefs, I mean calling them out in terms of their character and their approach to answering such important questions) |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 7, 2013 15:00:24 GMT
Recently a friend of mine directed someone to me for a discussion about the existence of God and all things related. The individual in question started by telling me they were knowledgeable and 'very well researched'. This typically indicates someone who suffers from the Dunning-Kruger effect, and whose 'research' involves frantic Googling for anything which supports their ideas, as well as repeated links to Wikipedia. Sure enough, that's what it turned out to be; another Dunning-Kruger victim. At the beginning of our correspondence I asked 'To what extent are you prepared to acknowledge that the scholarly consensus and professionally informed positions of the relevant peer reviewed scholarly literature hold greater weight than your personal opinions?'. I received the answer 'At some point we must concede knowledge to matter experts (I am not a matter expert on everything). We should ensure these experts are not biased and use the scientific method and open their work to peer review'. I was interested to see if this position would be maintained once they discovered that some of their pet ideas were contradicted by the relevant professional literature. Sure enough, after they had appealed not only to David Fitzgerald' but also to Dorothy Murdock, it was clear where this was heading; not only was he ignorant of even the basic facts concerning the subjects on which he was attempting to argue, he also had absolutely no understanding of the relevant scholarly literature (of which he was clearly ignorant), and was now going to start asserting the superiority of his personal opinion above the work of professional peer reviewed scholarship. What interests me is the extent to which the pattern is so reliable, especially with regard to the fundamentalist mindset (using the term 'fundamentalist' in its secular sense). This person thinks in exactly the same as any other fundamentalist, and has picked up the usual group of weird ideas which seem to go together. Furthermore, they check all the boxes in my Dunning-Kruger detection kit. Even more interesting is their automatic dismissal of any atheist who disagrees with them. In response to a number of their points I cited, linked to, or quoted professional scholars who are atheists, and atheist commentators (including Tim O'Neil). Of course they were all either ignored or dismissed as wrong; nobody who disagrees with him can be right. Once people become sufficiently dislocated from reality to place their own personal opinion over professional scholarship, it's like anything goes, but with fundamentalist atheists (as with fundamentalist Christians), there's a specific pattern of certain beliefs which go together. This person exhibits the same pattern of beliefs as the typical Vridar fan, right down to the severe case of Dunning-Kruger effect. This is a list of what this person genuinely believes to be factual, complete with direct quotations. 1. The Genesis creation narrative was copied from the Enuma Elish. * 'If you would like some sources with evidence for verification of the link between the Babylonian Creation Myth and the biblical creation myth, please read "Who Wrote The Bible?" by Richard E. Friedman or "A history of God" by Karen Armstrong, or you can look at the bottom of the page of the documentary hypothesis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis'. I pointed out that Friedman's book (which I own and have read; he clearly has not), does not say anything about the Genesis narrative being borrowed from the Enuma Elish (though it does discuss multiple authors and sources), and Armstrong's book (which I also own and have read; he clearly has not), is an amateur work written by an ex-nun, and on this point is of no value given the scholarly consensus that the Genesis creation narrative was not borrowed from the Enuma Elish (I cited several scholarly references). Needless to say, the Wiki article to which he linked says nothing supporting his claim (he didn't even read the article, he just lifted the references to Friedman and Armstrong from it). 2. Jesus did not exist; yes, he actually believes this. * 'Josephus is a very problematic account and most likely a forgery' * 'There is a wide scholarly debate about whether Jesus in fact actually existed or not' * ' I can list as many names of historians as you can who believe Jesus did NOT exist as an actual person' He linked to two Wikipedia pages, the first of which says the exact opposite of what he claimed; there is no dispute among professional historians that Jesus existed. I asked him to list five professional historians who believe Jesus did not exist; he chose not to respond, but still insists Jesus never existed. 3. Secular professional scholars who study the Biblical texts to determine its meaning in its original socio-historical context are no different to apologists. * 'Please explain how an "Expert" is different from a "Apologist" in this regard' * ' In MY opinion these people are just Apologists trying to convert old words that are no longer relevant to current knowledge that is changing as we make new discoveries' * 'Other ancient documents are NOT "interpreted" the way the bible is reworded. What they say is what was believed at the time. There is NO need for TRANSLATION or INTERPRETATION' Needless to say no evidence was provided for these claims. I particularly enjoyed reading the claim that other ancient documents are not interpreted using the same methodology as professional scholars use for the Bible (!), and how 'There is NO need for TRANSLATION or INTERPRETATION' of ancient texts (perhaps he actually believes they are all written in English). 4. Panbabylonism. Yes, he actually believes this. * 'There is more evidence for Panbabylonism than ever' I have explained to him that Panbabylonism died decades ago (1890-c. 1930, continuing today only as a fringe study, and consistently criticized by mainstream scholarship), but he still linked to a Youtube video by bishop Shelby Spong. That's right, he actually appealed to Spong as evidence that 'There is more evidence for Panbabylonism than ever'. |
|
|
|
Post by sankari on Apr 7, 2013 16:04:21 GMT
An outstanding example. Looks like he ticks all the boxes without fail!
|
|
|
|
Post by unkleE on Apr 7, 2013 21:34:20 GMT
Not having read much on the OT, I had never heard of the term Panbabylonism, so I looked it up and found I had some limited knowledge only of the idea. The Wikipedia page gives some information, but doesn't say anywhere what the current status of the hypothesis is. A section on "Current scholarship" would probably improve it, though that may be true for many Wikipedia pages. My sympathies about the discussion. I have recently had one or two similar - though I lack some of your scholarship, it didn't require all that much. It was the usual topics (1) Jesus didn't exist (and the only scholars he would accept as having credibility were Price and Carrier!) and (2) the non-existence of a first century Nazareth. Plus ça change .... ! |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 8, 2013 8:04:59 GMT
Not having read much on the OT, I had never heard of the term Panbabylonism, so I looked it up and found I had some limited knowledge only of the idea. The Wikipedia page gives some information, but doesn't say anywhere what the current status of the hypothesis is. A section on "Current scholarship" would probably improve it, though that may be true for many Wikipedia pages. It's such an old and out of date theory that it hardly receives a mention in current literature except as an example of a scholarly relic. There's a useful review by an amateur (though well referenced with extensive citation of the relevant literature), here. Yes the pattern is pretty much always the same; the key point is the core set of beliefs they hold, and their desperate attempt to avoid scrutiny of their position. It's a classic case of extreme confirmation bias. |
|
|
|
Post by James Hannam on Apr 8, 2013 20:43:20 GMT
Hi fortigurn,
Sorry to derail, but you mentioned some current scholarship on the relationship between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish. I'd be very interested to know where to find out the current consensus on this. I seem to have picked up that Genesis is a refutation of the Babylonian account, but not sure how I thought I knew this!
Best wishes
James
|
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 9, 2013 0:31:47 GMT
Hi fortigurn, Sorry to derail, but you mentioned some current scholarship on the relationship between Genesis 1 and Enuma Elish. I'd be very interested to know where to find out the current consensus on this. I seem to have picked up that Genesis is a refutation of the Babylonian account, but not sure how I thought I knew this! There's no doubt that it's polemically opposed to the Mesopotamian cosmogony, of which the writer is aware. That in itself disproves the idea that the Genesis creation account is simply a copy of the Mesopotamian cosmogony; on the contrary, it's a refutation. The point I was making was not that the writer of the Genesis account was unaware of the Mesopotamian cosmogony, but that there was no literary dependence/copying of Enuma Elish. The idea that the Genesis creation was simply borrowed from the Enuma Elish (or another Mesopotamian creation account such as that within the Atrahasis Epic or the Gilgamesh Epic), has long since been discarded; see Kitchen (Egyptologist and Assyriologist),[1] Tsumura,[2] Smith,[3] Arnold and Beyer,[4] Moyise,[5] Heidel,[6], and Hill and Walton,[7] all of them representative of the established scholarly consensus. _____________ [1] ‘ Thus most Assyriologists have long since rejected the idea of any direct link between Gen. 1-11 and Enuma Elish, and nothing else better can be found between Gen. 1-11 and any other Mesopotamian fragments.’, Kitchen, ‘On the Reliability of the Old Testament’, p. 424 (2003); his footnote reads ‘Assyriologists generally reject any genetic relationship between Gen. 1-2 and the Mesopotamian data because of the considerable differences; see (eg.) J.V. Kinnier-Wilson. In D. W. Thomas, ed., Documents from Old Testament Times (London: Nelson, 1958), 14; W. G. Lambert, JTS. n.s., 16 (1965): 287-300, esp. 289. 291, 293-99. and in ISF, 96-113, with addenda; A. R. Millard, TynB 18 (1967): 3-4.7. 16-18, and in ISIF 114-28; T. Jacobsen, in JBL 100 (198 1): 513-29, and translation, both now in ISIF 129-42, plus 160-66.’, ibid., p. 591. [2] 'The similarities between the Genesis account and the 'Atra-Hasis Epic' do not support the idea that Genesis is a direct borrowing from the Mesopotamian but do indicate that Mesopotamian materials could have served as models for Genesis 1-11, as Jacobsen holds.', Tsumura, ‘Genesis and Ancient Near Eastern Stories of Creation and Flood’, in Hess & Tsumura (eds.), 'I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary Approaches to Genesis 1-11', Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, volume 4, p. 47 (1994). [3] 'With Genesis 1-11 we seem to be working more with shared motifs and basic plotlines that originated in Mesopotamia rather than with actually known texts directed [sic] borrowed into Israel.', Smith, 'God in Translation: Deities in Cross-Cultural Discourse in the Biblical World', p. 182 (2010). [4] 'The Bible's accounts of the creation of the world, the creation of humankind, and the flood were not borrowed from these, but neither are they unique in every respect.', Arnold & Beyer (eds.), 'Readings from the ancient Near East: primary sources for Old Testament study', p. 13 (2002). [5] 'The details are not exact and most scholars deny any direct literary dependence but it would seem that both stories emerge from a common tradition or milieu.', Moyise, 'Introduction to Biblical Studies', p. 33 (2004). [6] 'But after a careful study of the two, Alexander Heidel has concluded that "no incontrovertible evidence can for the present be produced" in favor of biblical dependence on the Babylonian materials.', Niehaus, 'Ancient Near Eastern Themes in Biblical Theology', p. 22 (2008). [7] 'Many who have done thorough linguistic and literary analysis (e.g., A. Heidel, A.R. Millard, D. Damrosch) conclude that literary dependence cannot be demonstrated. Here, as in most of the parallels in the primeval history, it is considered more likely that Mesopotamian and biblical traditions are based on a common source. Some understand this common source to be a piece of more ancient literature, while others consider it the actual event.', Hill & Walton, 'A Survey of the Old Testament', p. (2010). |
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Apr 9, 2013 6:31:16 GMT
There's no doubt that it's polemically opposed to the Mesopotamian cosmogony, of which the writer is aware. That in itself disproves the idea that the Genesis creation account is simply a copy of the Mesopotamian cosmogony; on the contrary, it's a refutation. The point I was making was not that the writer of the Genesis account was unaware of the Mesopotamian cosmogony, but that there was no literary dependence/copying of Enuma Elish. This sums up my understanding of the relationship between the two texts but I also cannot recall what the sources where. Given what Fortigurn has written above it may be that I have just gathered the general consensus form the books that I have read. I recently picked up Nahum Sarna's "Understanding Genesis:The World of the Bible in the Light of History". As far as I have managed to read, it seems like a comparative study with the Enuma Elish on the creation texts. So far it is a good read for about of about Au$20. It was originally published in 1966, so it is somewhat dated. I don't know if there has been any progress since the mid 60's that have shed more light on the topic of Genesis and the ANE. By the way Fortigurn, thanks for the above references. Ps. Apologies for derailing the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by fortigurn on Apr 9, 2013 7:45:32 GMT
This sums up my understanding of the relationship between the two texts but I also cannot recall what the sources where. Given what Fortigurn has written above it may be that I have just gathered the general consensus form the books that I have read. Yes it's like you've picked up the general consensus from various readings. I like Sarna, a conservative but reliable and well informed exegete. More recent relevant work can be found in Hess & Tsumura (eds.), 'I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary Approaches to Genesis 1-11', Sources for Biblical and Theological Study, volume 4 (1994), which contains a considerable amount of material. It's an oft cited work in this area. You're welcome, and no worries about the thread. |
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Aug 28, 2013 14:52:28 GMT
I disagree, actually - I find common ground with a lot of his stuff, and he generally has the good sense to not comment on things that he knows nothing about. Still, I accept that he can divide opinion  Holding has no relevant qualifications in the fields which cover the subjects he pontificates on. Consequently, he spends most of his time demonstrating he does not have the good sense to refrain from commenting on things he knows nothing about. When caught in an error, Holding blames his sources. When the error cannot be blamed on his sources, he resorts to absurd evasions and personal abuse. And that's not even the worst of it. Holding is offensive not just because he's childishly insulting, but because he brings Christianity into disrepute. From what I see the DK issue doesn't say that just not having credentials means you are concomitant. In areas where people don't have the credentials they are apt to overestimate their competence. Holding does a lot of research on the areas that he feels he's suited to deal with. He doesn't just speak out of a false sense of accomplishment but he backs up his views. Now a lot of his research might be badly done or misunderstood, but I find that a lot of it is pretty good. |
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Aug 28, 2013 14:54:41 GMT
Dunning-Kruger should shut he mouths of about 99% of atheist regarding theology.
|
|
|
|
Post by metacrock on Oct 19, 2013 12:21:36 GMT
So he's been hanging out on the CARM board?
|
|
