Posted: Nov 30, 2015 3:25 pm
This thread keeps threatening to turn into a spinoff of the Interminable Thread of Doom. Still, I think the issue of what constitutes "denialism" in this context is a separate topic, and one worth discussing.
FWIW, having stayed out of the Thread of Doom, the discussion around the present thread has satisfied me that the case for historical Jesus is a sound one, by the standards of general historical scholarship. This discussion by Tim O'Neil, which he posted in Sandwalk, was particularly helpful:
http://historyforatheists.blogspot.com. ... tting.html
That said, I'm still suspicious of the term "denialist", particularly as McGrath uses it. It was very hard to pin him down in my discussions with him. At one point, he drew an analogy to someone who denies the existence of Tiktaalik. This confused me, and I asked if he was saying we know Jesus existed with the same degree of certainty that we know Tiktaalik existed. He replied that he was not saying that and, after a bit more discussion, he ballparked the likelihood of Jesus' existence at about the same level that of Socrates.
Nonetheless, he continued to insist on his previous analogy, whereas to me (based on what he had himself said) it is not at all the same thing for a layperson to day he is not convinced that Tiktaalik actually existed, as to say he is not convinced that Jesus (or Socrates) actually existed. Only the former requires such a wholesale disavowal of the facts that it qualifies as "denialism" IMHO. (This is not to disparage history as a discipline, but simply to acknowledge that there are varying degrees of certainty with which we can know certain things about the past).
My suspicions grow when McGrath writes things like this:
A paleontologist might well say something similar about someone who claimed that Tiktaalik fossils were embedded in the earth by Satan to deceive people, but he would be saying so with the understanding that the claim is too absurd to take seriously. I'm not sure that McGrath is doing quite the same thing, and wonder if he is not, instead, saying "As an historian, of course, I can't say that Jesus was the Son of God who performed miracles and was raised from the dead. However, as a Christian...." My suspicions are bolstered when McGrath describes his personal religious beliefs:
Hmm, so as a "born again Christian", would that not mean that he believes in a Jesus who was the Son of God, performed miracles, and was raised from the dead? And would this not be the same Jesus of whose existence, as a historian, he is so certain that he would level the name "denialist" at anyone who does not share his level of certainty? If so, would he then be speaking as an historian, or as a Christian? I'm not convinced he's clear about that.
Another member on the Sandwalk blog, who I do not believe is a scholar, wrote that he found the historical implications of an historical Jesus "staggering". When I asked him to elaborate on these implications, he replied:
To which I responded that I did not deny this was "staggering", but was merely interested in how this was any more or less so, depending on whether Jesus was entirely mythical, or merely mostly mythical. He did not reply further.
FWIW, having stayed out of the Thread of Doom, the discussion around the present thread has satisfied me that the case for historical Jesus is a sound one, by the standards of general historical scholarship. This discussion by Tim O'Neil, which he posted in Sandwalk, was particularly helpful:
http://historyforatheists.blogspot.com. ... tting.html
That said, I'm still suspicious of the term "denialist", particularly as McGrath uses it. It was very hard to pin him down in my discussions with him. At one point, he drew an analogy to someone who denies the existence of Tiktaalik. This confused me, and I asked if he was saying we know Jesus existed with the same degree of certainty that we know Tiktaalik existed. He replied that he was not saying that and, after a bit more discussion, he ballparked the likelihood of Jesus' existence at about the same level that of Socrates.
Nonetheless, he continued to insist on his previous analogy, whereas to me (based on what he had himself said) it is not at all the same thing for a layperson to day he is not convinced that Tiktaalik actually existed, as to say he is not convinced that Jesus (or Socrates) actually existed. Only the former requires such a wholesale disavowal of the facts that it qualifies as "denialism" IMHO. (This is not to disparage history as a discipline, but simply to acknowledge that there are varying degrees of certainty with which we can know certain things about the past).
My suspicions grow when McGrath writes things like this:
If a religious text claims that God made the sun stand still at some point in the past, then historians can look and see whether there is mention of such an occurrence in texts from around the globe, and finding none, conclude that the claim is false. But in general, historians do not bother doing that, because historical study deals in probabilities, and so historical study is not going to find an improbable event to be probable anyway, and so it makes more sense to bracket out such claims rather than to waste time investigating them merely to confirm their improbability.
A paleontologist might well say something similar about someone who claimed that Tiktaalik fossils were embedded in the earth by Satan to deceive people, but he would be saying so with the understanding that the claim is too absurd to take seriously. I'm not sure that McGrath is doing quite the same thing, and wonder if he is not, instead, saying "As an historian, of course, I can't say that Jesus was the Son of God who performed miracles and was raised from the dead. However, as a Christian...." My suspicions are bolstered when McGrath describes his personal religious beliefs:
Would if be going too far to say that those who have had mystical experiences are in very much the position of sighted people trying to explain color to the blind, or music lovers trying to explain why a piece moves them so much to someone who is tone deaf? In this conversation, however, it is not clear that the other side of the conversation is “disabled”. They simply have no interest in understanding the experience or appreciating the music. And there is no way I can introduce someone to the music or why it moves me just by talking in abstract terms about something that is deeply experiential.
On the other hand, part of the issue is that I have no interest in defending any particular doctrines about God, and so my “views” seem hard to pin down, because I hold them so loosely. I realized long ago that the life-changing experience I had when I cried out to God in surrender and felt a sense of peace wash over me does not prove that a tomb was empty 2,000 or so years ago, or that God is 3-in-one, or any other such claims. What seems to confuse some people is that I still can find Trinitarian language helpful and inspiring and meaningful, not as a statement about what God is “really like” (as though I had a means to study that scientifically or objectively), but as an image of how this God that we speak of only in inadequate symbols and metaphors can be eternal love (since love requires more than one person).
So I’m something of an unusual case. A born again Christian who is not going to try to claim more than he can demonstrate with evidence about history or doctrine.
Hmm, so as a "born again Christian", would that not mean that he believes in a Jesus who was the Son of God, performed miracles, and was raised from the dead? And would this not be the same Jesus of whose existence, as a historian, he is so certain that he would level the name "denialist" at anyone who does not share his level of certainty? If so, would he then be speaking as an historian, or as a Christian? I'm not convinced he's clear about that.
Another member on the Sandwalk blog, who I do not believe is a scholar, wrote that he found the historical implications of an historical Jesus "staggering". When I asked him to elaborate on these implications, he replied:
I still consider “Jesus” as an exquisite example of Edward Lorenz’s “Butterfly Effect” where seemingly trivial random events in Galilee unleashed a metaphorical “hurricane” that changed the course of history.
"Staggering"? I think so! Why not?!
To which I responded that I did not deny this was "staggering", but was merely interested in how this was any more or less so, depending on whether Jesus was entirely mythical, or merely mostly mythical. He did not reply further.