Posted: Dec 02, 2015 8:02 am
That's all fine and well, it does not make the answer to "who cares [that 'maybe there was no Jesus' as opposed to it being 'on balance, more probable than not that some guy named Jesus existed']" "those who value the historical truth" though.
You could very well research what Tony Blair ate for breakfast yesterday, but justifying such an interest with an interest in "historical truth" would be a non-sequitur - and at least there's a historical truth to be found in that case.
People are free to be interested in whatever they like, no justification is required. The thing is that other people are equally free to point out the inconsequentiality of a debate. It simply doesn't matter whether there was some guy at the centre of the myth, or if he was a composite or some other subtle variation on a theme. Nothing at all follows from this fact. Similarly it doesn't matter what Tony Blair ate for breakfast yesterday (noting that it's pretty unlikely he dined on unicorn steak, fairy dust, pure cyanide or other miraculous "possibilities").
Or to put it another way the difference between people who do not care a jot whether "Jesus existed" or even exactly which direction the "balance of probabilities" tilts and those who do care is nothing to do with an interest in the truth (or even the truth of Christianity or similar). Clearly there are a lot of people heavily invested in the question who do not much care about truth or investigating it fairly and impartially, just as there are those who are not invested who do not so do.
You could very well research what Tony Blair ate for breakfast yesterday, but justifying such an interest with an interest in "historical truth" would be a non-sequitur - and at least there's a historical truth to be found in that case.
People are free to be interested in whatever they like, no justification is required. The thing is that other people are equally free to point out the inconsequentiality of a debate. It simply doesn't matter whether there was some guy at the centre of the myth, or if he was a composite or some other subtle variation on a theme. Nothing at all follows from this fact. Similarly it doesn't matter what Tony Blair ate for breakfast yesterday (noting that it's pretty unlikely he dined on unicorn steak, fairy dust, pure cyanide or other miraculous "possibilities").
Or to put it another way the difference between people who do not care a jot whether "Jesus existed" or even exactly which direction the "balance of probabilities" tilts and those who do care is nothing to do with an interest in the truth (or even the truth of Christianity or similar). Clearly there are a lot of people heavily invested in the question who do not much care about truth or investigating it fairly and impartially, just as there are those who are not invested who do not so do.