We are told that the reason people in the past could believe in and claim to experience miracles, while modern Western people supposedly cannot, is because, unlike us, ancient people were "naive and mythologically minded." Ancient people supposedly had little to no awareness of the laws of nature, no sense of critical history, and thus could not clearly separate fact from fiction....
Unfortunately for this perspective, there is mounting evidence that this alleged dichotomy between the worldview of ancient people and the worldview of modern Western people is itself a piece of modern mythology. For all their differences from the modern Western world, ancient people - as well as primordial groups today - were not nearly as uniformly "naive and mythologically minded" as many modern scholars have tended to assume. Two points may be made in this regard.
First, it should be acknowledged that the pervasive Western academic assumption that nonliterate or semiliterate cultures could not clearly distinguish myth from history was never based on solid empirical evidence. It is, in fact, largely an unwarranted Western, academic assumption. As we will explore in chapters 6 and 7, recent orality studies have demonstrated that orally dominant cultures (cultures in which reading plays little or no role) were and are often quite intentional in keeping fictional aspects of the oral tradition distinct from nonfictional elements when it comes to certain genres....
It is thus becoming increasingly evident that the common Western academic assumption that ancient, orally dominant cultures were not interested in actual history and/or were incapable of keeping factual historical remembrances distinct from myth is itself a grand myth propagated by modern Western scholars who were simply ignorant of the facts....
While most ancient historians certainly did not share the hyperskepticism of some contemporary Western scholars toward the supernatural, there was, as Glenn Chestnut has documented, "a good deal of skepticism within the Graeco-Roman historiographical tradition."...
Even more significant for our purpose (for it potentially affects our view of the gullibility of the authors of the Synoptic Gospels), it appears that when it comes to the question of belief in miracles, people in the first century were, on the whole, not very different from people in modern Western culture....
This observation [of F.G. Downing] comports well with Robert Grant's conclusion that "the least credulous period of antiquity was the late Hellenistic age."...[and] most modern people are not nearly as secularized as many Western scholars seem to assume....
Downing demonstrates that "the level of belief - or suspension of disbelief - seems to have been not much different from what we find today for belief in alternative medicines, belief in ley-lines, belief in visitors from outer space, or belief in the free market economy."...
Degh and Vazsonyi (pp. 112-15) also note the existence of a generally neglected - but quite common - genre of folk legend known as the "negative legend" (or "anti-legend"). The negative legend reports an ostensibly "supernatural" occurrence that is then debunked by supplying a rational, natural explanation for the phenomenon. The presence of negative legends within folk traditions is just one example that undercuts the false assumption that the "folk" are generally naive and gullible with respect to reports of supernatural occurrences. (pp. 64-66, 331, n. 89 on p. 331)
Again, I recommend reading the entirety of their comments. They go into much more detail, along with a large amount of documentation.
"Were Ancient People Gullible Enough To Sustain Modern Skeptical Theories?"
ReplyDeleteWere any ancient people atheists?
In the arguments against the gullibility of ancient people, I always have to wonder at the motives of the arguers.
ReplyDeleteWhat I mean is that it is generally argued, and I would say generally agreed, that ancient laypersons were quite uneducated by modern standards, and that these same laypersons were indeed quite superstitious, and were quick to attribute otherwise natural phenomena to supernatural sources.
Obviously, the poor and uneducated extreme lower classes of modern societies are no less likely to accept some amount of superstition, but it should be just as obvious that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to attribute any phenomena to a supernatural cause.
So what is the argument about?
It seems that those who presuppose that the bible is true feel it necessary to defend the authors of biblical texts as educated, or as reasonably skeptic regarding the authenticity of the miracles about which they write. The masses, it is typically accepted, are indeed illiterate and uneducated peasants, who would just as well worship a statue of gold they had only recently constructed from their own jewelry.
The argument seems to focus rather on the authors, who are assumed to be significantly more educated than "the masses", although it is unclear as to why this assumption holds. First, we recognize that the authors are necessarily literate, so yes, they are more educated in that regard, but regarding science, skepticism, or scientific methodology, there is no reason to believe they were in any way substantially educated.
But even this is irrelevant!
It is not necessary for the authors to be as gullible as the masses to whom they write; they could just as easily have been intentionally perpetuating the mythology, so as to maintain their own status as the ruling class. To argue that the authors weren't gullible says nothing of the authors' intentions -- they may have been perfectly skeptical, but just as perfectly power-hungry, and their collective ego may have driven them to capture the legendary stories passed on by the masses, and incorporated them into the official mythology.
So yes, I think we all agree that average ancient laypersons were superstitious to the point of absurdity, and yes, I think we can tentatively agree that most of the educated clerical class were skeptical enough, and generally lacked the inherent gullibility of the uneducated masses.
Remember, though, that this in no way precludes them from intentionally perpetuating mythology as a form of societal control. History has shown that where education is limited or impaired, the resulting un- or under-educated class resorts to superstition, mythology, and religion. Where education is meted out to all, however, the ruling class becomes usurped, and the class boundaries are much less precise.
Clearly, then, it is in the best interest of the ruling class to monopolize education, and to perpetuate mythology which encourages the uneducated masses to remain subservient.
The truth or falsity of the accounts of miraculous events, or events otherwise attributed to supernatural agents, cannot be determined by an appeal to the gullibility of the masses any more than it can by the skepticism of the authors. At issue instead is whether or not we have sufficient reason to accept the accounts as factual, given the tools, evidence, and knowledge available to us today.
My answer is a resounding, "NO". Bodies of water do not spontaneously separate in a manner inconsistent with entropy. Fire does not beam down from the sky to burn water-soaked dead animals when we are appropriately pious. Metals and alloys with an average density greater than water, in a shape which easily breaks the surface tension of water, do not float. People do not survive days in the bellies of fish. Animals do not spontaneously pair off and march to a specific location -- with carnivores denying their instincts in the process -- to be voluntarily penned.
All it would take for the skeptic to allow these miracle claims to be taken seriously would be a reasonably well-documented similar miracle today. Show me the man who can survive three days inside a fish. Show me the man who can withstand a fiery furnace unscathed. Show me the man who can halt the earth's rotation.
No? Then conduct a simple mental exercise, wherein you consider how you would approach such a claim if made today. Would you be skeptical, or would you believe it?
Still not ready to denounce these events as mythology and/or legendary accounts, with no practical truth to them?
Then perhaps you have more in common with the ancient "masses" than you realize.
--
Stan
"What I mean is that it is generally argued, and I would say generally agreed, that ancient laypersons were quite uneducated by modern standards, and that these same laypersons were indeed quite superstitious, and were quick to attribute otherwise natural phenomena to supernatural sources."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly what is under dispute. No, that comes from the "God-of-the-gaps" myth that was invented back in the 19th century by naturalists. They made it up in order to present the relationship between science/reason and religion as one of conflict. However, this was (and is) historical revisionism. Did it happen at times? Of course. But not as much as modern atheists want us to believe.
"The masses, it is typically accepted, are indeed illiterate and uneducated peasants, who would just as well worship a statue of gold they had only recently constructed from their own jewelry."
This would be false for the first Christians who were Jewish and read the Torah.
"First, we recognize that the authors are necessarily literate, so yes, they are more educated in that regard, but regarding science, skepticism, or scientific methodology, there is no reason to believe they were in any way substantially educated."
Several of the authors of Scripture (esp. Paul and Luke) exhibit a high education.
"It is not necessary for the authors to be as gullible as the masses to whom they write; they could just as easily have been intentionally perpetuating the mythology, so as to maintain their own status as the ruling class."
Every piece of information that we have states that the authors of (at least) the New Testament were servants of the people they sought to persuade and even gave up their homes, fortunes, and lives in the name of their cause. The idea of "the ruling class" suppressing the gullibles (in this case, at least) is a joke.
"History has shown that where education is limited or impaired, the resulting un- or under-educated class resorts to superstition, mythology, and religion. Where education is meted out to all, however, the ruling class becomes usurped, and the class boundaries are much less precise."
Nice Marxist view of history. Too bad it isn't true.
"My answer is a resounding, "NO". Bodies of water do not spontaneously separate in a manner inconsistent with entropy. Fire does not beam down from the sky to burn water-soaked dead animals when we are appropriately pious. Metals and alloys with an average density greater than water, in a shape which easily breaks the surface tension of water, do not float. People do not survive days in the bellies of fish. Animals do not spontaneously pair off and march to a specific location -- with carnivores denying their instincts in the process -- to be voluntarily penned."
Of course they don't. Miracles are not random or repeating, orderly occurrences. In trying to place miracles, you are making a false dichotomy between a *random* event and a normal or "natural" occurrence. Instead, a miracle is an act by God that makes a point in a particular context. It is an act by the protagonist in the drama of redemption. God is not Big-Bend, and every so often, after He can't hold it in any longer, a miracle shoots out of His fingertips. No, the assumption of uniformity misses the point that a miracle is done by a *personal* Being. Miracles are neither random nor necessarily repeating occurrences. They were usually done to confirm a revelation or make a redemptive act (or both). With the Scriptures once-for-all handed down, is there any real need for a miracle?
"Then conduct a simple mental exercise, wherein you consider how you would approach such a claim if made today. Would you be skeptical, or would you believe it?"
We in the West have been influenced so much by materialist propaganda that many have a block to such things. Our cultural setting has influenced us. This is psychological.
But given the same amount of evidence that I accept for any other event, yes I would believe it.
"Then perhaps you have more in common with the ancient "masses" than you realize."
Try actually reading Jason's arguments before posting next time.
That ancient people were not superstitious when compared to modern scientifically literate people today is completely and absolutely ludacrious!
ReplyDeleteYou must continute to kick against the goads to believe.
Kick away then...
I goes against thought; just think about it. And it goes against the overwhelming evidence.
As an anthropologist your views are the perfect example of being ethnocentric. When comparing one culture to your own you cannot ASSUME that your culture is necessarily superior to the other. Our values of 'education' would seem patently obsurd to many past societies, formal education wasn't a staple of lay person life. Not because they were superstitious nitwits but because their concerns and culture dictated OTHER standards. Such as growing crops, gathering herbs etc. Most often these acts were dine from mental from mental recall, we are so heavily dependent on technology we don't realize how stupid we can be at times.
DeleteWe cannot recreate the building of many ancient 'wonders' such as the pyramids at Giza. This stereotypical of ancients as dumb is a result of modern man failing to grasp the concept of evolution properly. It took MILLIONS of years to get to what we consider modern human, and thousands more to get to 'society.' The human mind has not evolved that drastically in 50k years (and yes I mean mind and brain by that) so the differences between someone now and someone a few thousand years ago are almost exclusively cultural and technological. And every age has created and advanced its own technology, be it more efficient hunting methods , better tool making, more efficient agricultural achievements or better war machines to conquer and slaughter with. At no time was the whole of humanity stagnant, someone somewhere was pushing the KNOWN boundaries and technologies. That is exactly what we continue to day. Do we KNOW more now? Of course, but we have also LOTS a lot of knowledge that was mastered thousands of years ago. The 'overwhelming evidence' you speak of is where exactly? In the ability to sustain agriculture in areas we cannot conquer today with our technological advances? In the Roman ability to have running water and heated floors? In the fact that our mathematics is FOUNDED in theories thousands of years old? That scuba breathing apparatus, tank and flying machines were designed in Davinci's mind? That the Pyramids we're constructed in ways we can't replicate? Yes the evidence is clearly overwhelming- that we are self absorbed idiots who fail to acknowledge that the most advanced humans happen to be all humans. Be it a humble farmer in the Nile 2000 years ago innovating to make planting and harvesting easier or us today with our iPads and technobabble- innovation is innovation. And not that long ago Pluto was a planet. What is 'important" to innovate and concentrate our focus on changes over time that's the only difference between us and the ancients. And they knew things we are only beginning to understand. String theory for one, planetary and cosmological info for another.
STAN, THE HALF-TRUTH TELLER SAID:
ReplyDelete“In the arguments against the gullibility of ancient people, I always have to wonder at the motives of the arguers.”
One never has to wonder about Stan’s motives.
“What I mean is that it is generally argued, and I would say generally agreed, that ancient laypersons were quite uneducated by modern standards.”
There’s a difference between being highly educated and well educated. You can have a number of degrees and be very poorly educated. A teenage homeschooler may be far better educated than a guy with a doctorate from Harvard.
It all depends on the curriculum. *What* people are being taught, and not how much. You can find more dumb ideas in academia than anywhere else.
“And that these same laypersons were indeed quite superstitious, and were quick to attribute otherwise natural phenomena to supernatural sources.”
One doesn’t have to be formally educated to be smart or observant.
“Obviously, the poor and uneducated extreme lower classes of modern societies are no less likely to accept some amount of superstition, but it should be just as obvious that the more educated people are, the less likely they are to attribute any phenomena to a supernatural cause.”
To begin with, that’s simply false. For example, many highly educated people are involved in the occult—including black magic and Satanism. But because that’s still socially disreputable, they conceal their involvement.
Likewise, educated unbelievers simply adopt secularized forms of superstition, like ufology. They are also prey to academic fads of every conceivable description.
“It seems that those who presuppose that the bible is true feel it necessary to defend the authors of biblical texts as educated, or as reasonably skeptic regarding the authenticity of the miracles about which they write.”
Where does Stan come up with this stuff? Here’s a question for you Stan: What Bible scholars and theologians have you read? Give us a few names and titles.
One doesn’t have to be educated to be an eyewitness. One doesn’t have to be educated to be a reliable eyewitness. And one doesn’t have to be educated to be inspired.
The Bible writers range along an educational continuum. Some are highly educated while others have far less formal education.
“The masses, it is typically accepted, are indeed illiterate and uneducated peasants, who would just as well worship a statue of gold they had only recently constructed from their own jewelry.”
Even illiterate people could be very smart, observant, and levelheaded. The ancient world was a tough place to live. Survival in the ancient world didn’t favor the stupid.
“First, we recognize that the authors are necessarily literate, so yes, they are more educated in that regard, but regarding science, skepticism, or scientific methodology, there is no reason to believe they were in any way substantially educated.”
Richard Dawkins is substantially educated in science and the scientific method. But his powers of critical judgment are sorely deficient. Even many unbelievers were embarrassed by the performance he turned in when he published The God Delusion.
“It is not necessary for the authors to be as gullible as the masses to whom they write; they could just as easily have been intentionally perpetuating the mythology, so as to maintain their own status as the ruling class. To argue that the authors weren't gullible says nothing of the authors' intentions -- they may have been perfectly skeptical, but just as perfectly power-hungry, and their collective ego may have driven them to capture the legendary stories passed on by the masses, and incorporated them into the official mythology.”
Of course, Stan didn’t arrive at this analysis by actually studying the Bible. Instead, he imposes his prefabricated, warmed over Marxism on the Bible.
BTW, Stan’s an excellent example of someone who may, for all I know, have lots of education, but be poorly educated. Like a human tape recorder on playback, he’s reciting the formulaic catchphrase which were drilled into him in college, or that he picked up from reading secular authors.
If Stan had any critical thinking skills of his own, he’d never derive that analysis of the Bible from the Bible. How many Bible writers were members of the ruling class? Not a single NT author was a member of the ruling class. To the contrary, the NT writers belonged to a persecuted little religious sect that had no legal standing.
The one NT writer who comes closest to being a member of the ruling class was Paul. He came from a very good family and was on a brilliant career track. But he threw that away to be a missionary. Very few OT writers were members of the ruling class.
Moreover, if the Bible written from the viewpoint of the ruling class? If it were written from their viewpoint, it would present rulers as gods. It would say that rulers could do no wrong. It would say that rulers were absolute monarchs.
Is that how the Bible portrays the ruling class? No. It portrays many rulers as venal and corrupt. It frequently portrays the ruling class as decadent and unjust.
The OT is fairly hostile to monarchy (e.g. 2 Sam 8:10-18). And the only form of monarchy it endorses is a constitutional monarchy, where the king is subject to the law of God. The OT records instances in which corrupt kings were deposed or assassinated. Doesn’t sound to me as if the OT was written from the viewpoint of the ruling class.
What about the NT? The religious ruling class was the Sadducees. Is the NT written from a Sadducean viewpoint? No.
Are the accounts of the Passion written from the viewpoint of the Sanhedrin? I don’t think so.
What about the political ruling class? Is Matthew written from Herod’s viewpoint? And what about his namesake in Acts 12:20-23? Was that written from the viewpoint of the ruling class?
The Apocalypse deals with both the political and religious ruling class. Does it paint a flattering portrayal of either? I don’t think so.
“Remember, though, that this in no way precludes them from intentionally perpetuating mythology as a form of societal control…Clearly, then, it is in the best interest of the ruling class to monopolize education, and to perpetuate mythology which encourages the uneducated masses to remain subservient.”
Yes, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, and Paul (to name a few) exerted a lot of “societal control,” did they not?
“Bodies of water do not spontaneously separate in a manner inconsistent with entropy. Fire does not beam down from the sky to burn water-soaked dead animals when we are appropriately pious. Metals and alloys with an average density greater than water, in a shape which easily breaks the surface tension of water, do not float. People do not survive days in the bellies of fish. Animals do not spontaneously pair off and march to a specific location -- with carnivores denying their instincts in the process -- to be voluntarily penned.”
Of course Stan simply begs the question in favor of naturalism. And he also misses the point. No one is claiming that certain miracles just naturally happen. Stan isn’t even engaging the point at issue.
“All it would take for the skeptic to allow these miracle claims to be taken seriously would be a reasonably well-documented similar miracle today. Show me the man who can survive three days inside a fish. Show me the man who can withstand a fiery furnace unscathed. Show me the man who can halt the earth's rotation.”
Stan tries to rig the experiment by dictating the miracle. But, actually, it wouldn’t take anything all that spectacular to explode his naturalistic paradigm.
“No? Then conduct a simple mental exercise, wherein you consider how you would approach such a claim if made today. Would you be skeptical, or would you believe it?”
I’m quite open to modern miracles.
“Then perhaps you have more in common with the ancient ‘masses’ than you realize.”
And Stan has more in common with the masses than he realizes. Stan is a mass product of mass education. Incapable of exercising independent judgment. Whatever his secular masters tell him he accepts with implicit faith in their every word.
He’s a blind, dutiful, doglike foot-soldier for the cause of secularism. A kamikaze for naturalism. He salutes, clicks his heels, and follows his marching orders unquestioningly.
Stan, The Half-Truth Teller writes:
ReplyDelete"What I mean is that it is generally argued, and I would say generally agreed, that ancient laypersons were quite uneducated by modern standards, and that these same laypersons were indeed quite superstitious, and were quick to attribute otherwise natural phenomena to supernatural sources."
Why should we be concerned with what you "would say" without any accompanying argumentation or documentation? The sources I've already cited to support my view provide a large amount of argumentation and documentation in support of their conclusions, unlike you.
You write:
"The masses, it is typically accepted, are indeed illiterate and uneducated peasants, who would just as well worship a statue of gold they had only recently constructed from their own jewelry."
You keep repeating arguments that have already been refuted. I addressed your golden calf example in the other thread. As I said there, reasonable people can exist among others who are unreasonable, and people who are unreasonable in one context can be reasonable in another. To assume that the golden calf incident in Exodus is representative of "the masses" in every relevant context is ridiculous. The fact that you would repeat such a bad argument after being corrected suggests that you yourself have a problem with discernment.
You write:
"First, we recognize that the authors are necessarily literate, so yes, they are more educated in that regard, but regarding science, skepticism, or scientific methodology, there is no reason to believe they were in any way substantially educated. But even this is irrelevant!"
Yes, it is irrelevant in the sense that Peter didn't need to be an engineer in order to reliably report that he saw an empty tomb, Luke didn't need to be a chemist in order to reliably report that he saw Paul perform a miracle, etc. Similarly, modern law courts accept the testimony of children, a housewife who never went to college, a janitor who believes in horoscopes, and others who don't know much about "science, skepticism, or scientific methodology". We rely on such people in many contexts in modern society.
You write:
"It is not necessary for the authors to be as gullible as the masses to whom they write; they could just as easily have been intentionally perpetuating the mythology, so as to maintain their own status as the ruling class. To argue that the authors weren't gullible says nothing of the authors' intentions -- they may have been perfectly skeptical, but just as perfectly power-hungry, and their collective ego may have driven them to capture the legendary stories passed on by the masses, and incorporated them into the official mythology."
You're raising a different issue than what I was addressing. The issue of the honesty of the Biblical authors and other relevant sources has been addressed elsewhere, such as here and here.
Most literate Christians weren't church leaders, and even among those who were church leaders, we don't begin with an assumption that they were "power-hungry". You would need to argue for that conclusion, not just assume it or assume that it's as likely as any other possibility without even attempting to distinguish which possibilities are more likely than others. The same is true of an alleged "collective ego". When a modern author writes something in a primarily illiterate culture, we don't begin with an assumption that he's "power-hungry" or uncritically going along with a "collective ego", nor do we assume that those possibilities are on an equal footing with all others, without making any attempt to distinguish the more likely possibilities from the less likely.
Why would "the masses" create a "mythology" like early Christianity? Given the public nature of many of the early Christians' claims, meaning that non-Christians would have had access to relevant information, why would the early enemies of Christianity not argue against the religion on the basis of its "mythological" nature? Why, instead, do we see the early enemies of Christianity acknowledging so much of what the early Christians said and not using the sort of argumentation we would expect them to use if the historical claims of the early Christians were radically false (see, for example, here, here, and here)?
You write:
"So yes, I think we all agree that average ancient laypersons were superstitious to the point of absurdity"
You don't define "the point of absurdity" for us. Wouldn't any "superstitious" belief be "absurd" in your eyes? But I reject the notion that the average person was too "superstitious" (or uneducated, gullible, etc.) for Christianity to be plausible, for reasons that I've explained and that have been explained by Paul Eddy, Gregory Boyd, Glenn Miller, and other sources I've cited above. And dismissing "average ancient laypersons" isn't enough, since many people would have been above the average. Furthermore, being "superstitious" doesn't select for Christianity. Ancient Jews already had a religion that you consider "superstitious". Gentiles had such religions as well. Why did they choose Christianity? The earliest Christians give evidential reasons (fulfilled prophecy, the resurrection of Christ, etc.). If such evidential reasons weren't actually involved, how do you allegedly know that, and why would people not concerned with such evidence keep mentioning it, keep telling people to seek after it, and structure their system of authority on it (apostles had to be eyewitnesses, etc.)?
You write:
"Clearly, then, it is in the best interest of the ruling class to monopolize education, and to perpetuate mythology which encourages the uneducated masses to remain subservient."
Christianity originated in a context in which Christians weren't "the ruling class". The earliest Christians came out of Jewish and Gentile educational systems. As Glenn Miller mentions in the article I linked to, those Jewish and Gentile contexts encouraged people to engage in critical thinking. As we see in 1 Corinthians, Galatians, and elsewhere, the claims of the apostles and other early Christian leaders weren't accepted uncritically. They had to make a case for their truth claims and authority claims. Judaism already had an established system of evidentiary standards (prophecies that had to be fulfilled, the significance of eyewitness testimony, etc.).
You write:
"Bodies of water do not spontaneously separate in a manner inconsistent with entropy. Fire does not beam down from the sky to burn water-soaked dead animals when we are appropriately pious. Metals and alloys with an average density greater than water, in a shape which easily breaks the surface tension of water, do not float. People do not survive days in the bellies of fish. Animals do not spontaneously pair off and march to a specific location -- with carnivores denying their instincts in the process -- to be voluntarily penned. All it would take for the skeptic to allow these miracle claims to be taken seriously would be a reasonably well-documented similar miracle today. Show me the man who can survive three days inside a fish. Show me the man who can withstand a fiery furnace unscathed. Show me the man who can halt the earth's rotation."
Once again, you're repeating a bad argument that was refuted in the previous thread. An event doesn't have to be reproduced in order to be historically credible. Let me repeat what I told you in the other thread, which you either dishonestly or carelessly ignored:
"Christians don’t maintain that donkeys have a natural ability to speak, nor do we maintain that axe heads have a natural ability to float, that water naturally becomes wine, etc. Rather, such acts are portrayed as miraculous by the Biblical authors and are understood as such by Christians. Thus, to point out that axe heads don’t float today, that water doesn’t become wine today, etc. is to miss the point. Asking whether 'water can become wine' leaves out the agent in scripture who brings about the transformation, Jesus. Christians don’t believe that water becomes wine without any outside influence."
To ignore the outside influence involved in these miracle accounts, as if the miracles should be reproduced today without the agents and contexts that led to their occurrence in the past, is unreasonable. To repeat such a bad argument after it's been refuted is even worse.
You write:
"Then conduct a simple mental exercise, wherein you consider how you would approach such a claim if made today. Would you be skeptical, or would you believe it?"
We don't just have "claims" about something like the resurrection of Christ. We also have other information by which we can judge the credibility of the claims. We've explained why we believe the claims in question. You've ignored most of what we've written. And you haven't made much of an effort to support your own claims.
John W. Loftus,
ReplyDelete"That ancient people were not superstitious when compared to modern scientifically literate people today is completely and absolutely ludacrious!
I goes against thought; just think about it. And it goes against the overwhelming evidence."
John, you just mentioned "thoughts" and "intention" and "belief" and "qualia" (the "feel" of being "obviously right," as you think you are).
So, my question for you, is how can you throw around those same "stupid" terms that the "ancient" people who thought in categories of "folk psychology" did?
I mean, if we're going to eliminate all talk of mysterious "gods" from our vernacular, and our credulity in believing that "god talk" was a useful way to explain the data, let's go all the way, baby!
Either offer a naturalistic account of "intentionality" or just eliminate it from your atheological repertoire.
Sound like a plan?
I mean, to the Churchlands you sound like an ancient dumb bell.
John Loftus wrote:
ReplyDelete"That ancient people were not superstitious when compared to modern scientifically literate people today is completely and absolutely ludacrious!"
You're repeating an error I've corrected you about in past discussions, including some linked at the beginning of this thread. Again, as I've explained to you many times, the issue isn't whether "ancient people were not superstitious when compared to modern scientifically literate people". Peter didn't need to be as scientifically knowledgeable or as discerning as a modern biologist or engineer, for example, in order to credibly report that he saw an empty tomb. Ancient people can be less knowledgeable than modern people or disadvantaged in some other manner without being as disadvantaged as critics of Christianity suggest or as disadvantaged as the critics' theories require. Similarly, forty-first-century people probably will have some significant advantages over twenty-first-century people, yet twenty-first-century people are credible enough for us to accept their testimony in law courts and in other contexts. We shouldn't need to be explaining these things to you even once, much less as frequently as we've had to do so over the years. For all your claims about the alleged lack of discernment among ancient people, you don't show much discernment yourself.
You write:
"I goes against thought; just think about it. And it goes against the overwhelming evidence."
We saw how prepared you were to discuss the evidence when I cited Glenn Miller's article and other relevant data. You kept misdefining the issues under discussion, as you've done again in this thread, and you repeatedly left the discussions without addressing much of the evidence.
"I" brings up a good point.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the materialist philosophy of history man evolved from the animals. Consequently, religion evolved from manna to polytheism to henotheism to monotheism to "rational thought" (lol!). What our previous ancestors thought was true is laughed at by us today as being irrational, superstitious and inferior to our evolved minds.
But that is simply self-excepting. What will our evolutionary descendents with their even more evolved minds think of the way we think and what we deem "rational"? Why should we think of ourselves as having reached the telos of epistemology when atheism eliminates teleology?
By eliminating teleology from the creation of the human mind, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of epistemic justification as well as the right to call anyone superstitious.
The Problem Of Miracles
ReplyDeleteby Dr. Greg Bahnsen
More often than not the modern mind finds abhorrent the occurrence - or even the possibility - of miracles. Miracles would disrupt our simplistic (and impersonalistic) views of the predictability and uniformity of the world around us. Miracles would indicate that there is a realm of inscrutable mystery for the (pretended) autonomy of man's mind. Miracles would testify to a transcendent and self-conscious Power in the universe which unbelievers find unnerving. So rather than examine whether miracles have in fact occurred or take seriously their reports and significance, it is better, thinks the unbeliever, to dismiss their possibility in advance.
So we will hear critics of Christianity say things like: "How can anybody with even a smattering of high school science believe that a virgin can conceive a child, a man can walk on water, a storm can be calmed upon command, the blind or lame can be instantly healed, or a dead corpse can resuscitate? The modern world knows better! The miracle-claims of Christianity are evidence of its irrationality and superstitious character." In the face of such ridicule and challenge, Christians sometimes cower in silence, when in fact it should be the critic who is intellectually ashamed - put to shame by his historical ignorance, as well as the logical defects in his thinking.
Slandering The Past
You will notice in the hypothetical challenge to Christianity's credibility which is expressed above (meant to be representative of the actual negative mindset and comments of unbelievers which we encounter), there is an unquestioned and arrogant assumption that a critical mindset about miracles is the exclusive property of "the modern world." The philosopher David Hume snidely remarked that it forms a strong presumption against all supernatural and miraculous relations that they are observed chiefly to abound among ignorant and barbarous nations; or if a civilized people has ever given admission to any of them, that people will be found to have received them from ignorant and barbarous ancestors....[1]
Over and over again you will find non-Christians who simply take it for granted that people in the ancient world believed miracles took place, to be blunt, because: (a) they were too scientifically stupid to know better, (b) they were gullible and naive, and/or (c) they were fascinated and eager to find anywhere they could traces of magic in their experience.
Of course, on those three scores we should wonder if the enlightened modern world has any reason for pride, really. It is not the least bit difficult today to locate scientifically stupid people, even college graduates. Watch them try to "fix" things with a hammer, deal with an unwanted cockroach or rationalize their smoking; listen to their home-cures for a hangover. And as for gullibility and magic! In our oh-so-smart "modern" world have you ever heard about get-rich-quick investment schemes, diet fads, lottery fever, or the wonder of crystals (or pyramids, etc.)?
Or listen to all those respected entertainers on TV talk-shows telling large, attentive audiences about their "former lives," or about the healing power of meditation, or about "social karma" and "mother earth," or about the "human face" of communist tyranny in our century, etc. These are hardly evidences of a critical mind or superior rationality.
Believe It Or Not, Skepticism Has Been Around
Clear-thinking people should beware of sloppy and self-serving generalizations about, or comparisons between, one age (or culture) and another.
Even more, they should refrain from manifesting the kind of historical ignorance which imagines that people who lived before our enlightened, modern age were, in general, never critically minded or were readily fooled (or more easily than we would be) into accepting tales of miracles. After all, what is the source of the expression occasionally still used in our day "he's just a doubting Thomas"? Remember Thomas, called Didymus (the "Twin"), from the gospel of John's account of Christ's resurrection (John 20:24-29)? Down through subsequent history he has come to be called "Doubting Thomas" just because of his skeptical mindset regarding one of the greatest miracles in the Bible. Thomas would not readily accept the testimony of the other apostles that they had seen the resurrected Savior.
And he was not alone in that spirit of disbelief. Even those who personally encountered Christ after He rose from the dead were not excitedly awaiting or jumping with eagerness at the opportunity to believe that a wonder had taken place. Two disciples on the Road to Emmaus (Luke 24:13-31) as well as Mary Magdalene (John 20:1, 11-16) were so disinclined to believe such a miracle that they did not even recognize Jesus when they saw him. (Gestalt psychology helps us understand that kind of experience, which all of us have had when "seeing" somebody we know, but not recognizing him "out of normal context" or in an unexpected setting.) Matthew relates that even in the presence of the resurrected Lord and knowing who He was supposed to be, "some doubted" (Matt. 28:17).
When the gospel of the resurrected Savior was taken out into the ancient world, there was then - even as now - a general antagonism to the credibility of such claims. Paul proclaimed the resurrection of Christ before the Council of Areopagus in Athens, but the Greek poet Aeschylus many years before had related, in the story of the very founding of the Areopagus, that it was there declared that once a man has died "there is no resurrection." The ancient world knew its share of skepticism and denunciation of miracles. Luke writes that when Paul's address to the Areopagus brought him to the claim about Christ's resurrection, his audience could hardly be characterized by general gullibility and a predisposed willingness to affirm the miracle! Instead: "now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked," and others more politely put Paul off to another time (Acts 17:32). Ridicule of miracles did not begin in the modern world of enlightened science.
Just like our own culture today, the ancient world was an intellectually mixed-bag. Like us, it had its share of superstitious and mystically minded people; as we do, it had people whose thinking was ignorant, misinformed, lazy, stupid, illogical and silly. But also like our own age, the ancient world had plenty of people who were skeptical and cynical. (Indeed, those were even the names for two prominent schools of ancient Greek philosophy in the period of the New Testament!) Plenty of people in the ancient world were critically minded about reports of natural wonders and magical powers. Many not only doubted claims to miracles and found them incredible, but even precluded the very possibility that such things could occur.
The Truth Claims Of Christianity
This was so much the case that you will notice the apostle Peter felt it necessary to make this declaration in his second general epistle: "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty" (2 Peter 1:16). Peter knew that it would be easy for people to "write off" the claims of Christians as just so much more idle chatter and story-telling; he knew that people in his own generation had dismissed the church's proclamation about Jesus because they would not believe such claims regarding miracles. Far from being stupid and gullible, Peter's contemporaries had to be assured that apostolic accounts of Jesus were not cunningly devised fables, but the eyewitness truth.
It was important for the Christian testimony in the midst of an unbelieving culture that followers of Jesus have a reputation for not "giving heed to fables" (1 Tim. 1:4) or entertaining "old wives' tales" (1 Tim. 4:7) - that is, fictitious accounts which are the very opposite of "the truth" of Christianity (2 Tim. 4:4). The hostile world of unregenerate men would only too gladly dismiss the claims of the gospel narrative as being of the same mythical nature - fabulous, unreliable, exaggerated.
The point here, very simply, is that contemporary critics of the Christian faith who automatically dismiss and ridicule the miracle-claims of the Bible because of the alleged widespread ignorance and gullibility of the ancient world only bring shame to themselves for their own ignorant prejudices and unwarranted generalizations. Like today, defenders of the faith in the ancient world encountered significant opposition and negativity about the alleged occurrence of miracles - hostility ranging from sophisticated philosophical repudiations to gut-level mockery. If people living in those days came to believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, walked on water, healed the sick and was raised from the dead, it was not because they categorically were weak-minded and ignorant fools, ready to believe any and every fable that came their way.
Begging The Question
The unbeliever who dismisses in advance the Biblical account of miracles should not only be ashamed of his arrogant slander against the ancient world's alleged ignorance and gullibility, he should also be embarrassed by the logically fallacious character of his "reasoning." Consider again our earlier statement from a hypothetical unbeliever, summarizing the actual comments which we hear from non-Christians: "How can anybody with even a smattering of high school science believe that a virgin can conceive a child, a man can walk on water, a storm can be calmed upon command, the blind or lame can be instantly healed, or a dead corpse can resuscitate? The modern world knows better! The miracle-claims of Christianity are evidence of its irrationality and superstitious character."
Unbelievers who speak this way are usually quite unaware of the fatuous and fallacious character of what they are saying and suggesting. They often think that they are treating the miracle-claims of the Bible as independent evidence that the Christian worldview is rationally unacceptable. Their reasoning is something like this: we already know miracles do not occur ("How could anybody believe..."), and since Christianity claims that such impossible things did occur (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection), we can draw the conclusion that Christianity must be false. But that conclusion is not so much "drawn" as it is taken for granted from the very outset. The denial of the very possibility of miracles is not a piece of evidence for rejecting the Christian worldview, but simply a specific manifestation of that very rejection.
Only if the Christian worldview happens to be false could the possibility of miracles be cogently precluded. According to Scripture's account, God is the transcendent and almighty Creator of heaven and earth. Everything owes its very existence and character to His creative power and definition (Gen. 1; Neh. 9:6; Col. 1:16-17). He makes things the way they are and determines that they function as they do. "His understanding is infinite" (Ps. 147:5). Moreover, God sovereignly governs every event that transpires, determining what, when, where, and how anything takes place - from the movement of the planets to the decrees of kings to the very hairs of our heads (Eph. 1:11). According to the Bible, He is omnipotent and in total control of the universe. Isaiah 40 celebrates in famous phraseology the creation, delineating, direction, providence, and power of Jehovah (vv. 12, 22-28). He has the freedom and control over the created order that the potter has over the clay (Rom. 9:21). As the Psalmist affirms, "Our God is in the heavens; He has done whatsoever He pleased" (115:3).
Greg Bahnsen:
ReplyDeleteUnbelievers who speak this way are usually quite unaware of the fatuous and fallacious character of what they are saying and suggesting...Their reasoning is something like this: we already know miracles do not occur ("How could anybody believe..."), and since Christianity claims that such impossible things did occur (e.g., virgin birth, resurrection), we can draw the conclusion that Christianity must be false. But that conclusion is not so much "drawn" as it is taken for granted from the very outset.
We begin with a claim about testimony. On the one side we have wide testimony to the effect that when people step into the water they do not remain on its surface. On the other side we have isolated reports of people walking across the surface of the water. Given the testimony of the first kind, how are we to evaluate the testimony or the second sort? The testimony of the first sort does not show that the testimony of the second sort is false; it does, however, create a strong presumption—unless countered, a decisively strong presumption—in favor of its falsehood. There is nothing circular or question begging about what we do.
Again Jason, that ancient people were not superstitious when compared to modern scientifically literate people today is completely and absolutely ludacrious!
ReplyDeleteWe can see how applied science has impacted us (in no particular order) in the areas of medicine, biology, earth science, computer science, engineering, technology, zoology, geology, electricity, botany, genetics, dental technology,rocket science, astronomy, forensics, meteorology, chemistry, laser surgery, hydraulics, x-rays, and plasma physics. It has increased the number of elements in the periodic table of elements, as well as aided our understanding the nervous and muscular system, brain science, the whole notion of friction, and so on.
Compare the above scientific disciplines with such things as divination, casting of lots, dreams, visions, trances, magic, exorcisms healing people, necromancy, sorcery, prophets for every religion, idol worship, gods and goddesses for every natural phenomena, human and animal sacrifices, priests, omens, temples, festivals,sacred writings, and the Pseudepigrapha. We live in a much different world than the ancients, primarily because of modern science.
John Loftus wrote:
ReplyDelete"On the one side we have wide testimony to the effect that when people step into the water they do not remain on its surface. On the other side we have isolated reports of people walking across the surface of the water."
That's a false comparison. The reports of Jesus' walking on water don't just involve "people stepping into the water". The events are portrayed as supernatural and are understood as such by Christians. God is involved, not just the ordinary properties of people and water. If there are two attempts made by people to fly, but one involves an airplane and the other only involves the ordinary properties of a person and the air, you need to take the involvement of the airplane into account.
You write:
"Given the testimony of the first kind, how are we to evaluate the testimony or the second sort?"
You'll have to explain how you, as an atheist, come to the conclusion that you can trust your perception of the testimony of other people and how you determine, as an atheist, that the universe operates in the sort of predictable manner that your comparison assumes. As we've demonstrated many times, you make a lot of assumptions that are unjustified from an atheistic perspective.
You write:
"The testimony of the first sort does not show that the testimony of the second sort is false; it does, however, create a strong presumption—unless countered, a decisively strong presumption—in favor of its falsehood."
But you keep ignoring the "counters" that we've presented, as the threads I've linked to at the beginning of this thread demonstrate. Many other examples could be cited.
You write:
"Again Jason, that ancient people were not superstitious when compared to modern scientifically literate people today is completely and absolutely ludacrious!"
Again, John, I've already addressed that misrepresentation of the issue I was discussing. You aren't interacting with what I said.
You go on to, once again, repeat the same erroneous argument we've refuted before, in which you compare what you perceive as the best of the modern world (laser surgery, etc.) to what you perceive as the worst of the ancient world (temples, etc.). You're not even attempting to interact with what we've said in the past in response to that erroneous argument.
JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“We can see how applied science has impacted us (in no particular order) in the areas of medicine, biology, earth science, computer science, engineering, technology, zoology, geology, electricity, botany, genetics, dental technology,rocket science, astronomy, forensics, meteorology, chemistry, laser surgery, hydraulics, x-rays, and plasma physics. It has increased the number of elements in the periodic table of elements, as well as aided our understanding the nervous and muscular system, brain science, the whole notion of friction, and so on.”
i) Advances in technology don’t require a different worldview. The Bible affirms the reality of providential second causes. That worldview can underwrite technology. Technology simply involves the discovery and/or manipulation of second causes.
ii) There’s no relationship between superior technology and diminished superstition. A modern astrologer can use computer technology in casting horoscopes. Do I approve of that? No. But people operate that way all the time.
“Compare the above scientific disciplines with such things as divination, casting of lots, dreams, visions, trances, magic, exorcisms healing people, necromancy, sorcery, prophets for every religion, idol worship, gods and goddesses for every natural phenomena, human and animal sacrifices, priests, omens, temples, festivals,sacred writings, and the Pseudepigrapha. We live in a much different world than the ancients, primarily because of modern science.”
This is a standard tactic of his. Loftus jumbles together a whole stuff under the unargued assumption that it’s all of a kind, and it’s all “superstitious.”
Modern science doesn’t undermine the principle of redemptive sacrifice. That’s a category mistake.
And there’s a great deal of evidence for the miraculous and the paranormal which Loftus simply ignores.
Not only that, but there are still people today who practice everything that Loftus brings up. Granted, there aren't as many in America or other places in the West.
ReplyDeleteYou know, the places where Christianity has flourished and has largely shaped the culture.
Wonder why that would be the case. Christians tend to spread rationality; places without much Christian influence still do the things Loftus says only the ancients did. Loftus has obviously not seen an African animist, Hindu rituals in the Ganges (or the plethera of gods and goddesses on display throughout India), etc. And I don't mean just that he hasn't been there, but that he doesn't watch the Discovery Channel either.
Or maybe he does but just doesn't want to aknowledge it. After all, to aknowledge it would be to refute his argument.
JOHN W. LOFTUS SAID:
ReplyDelete“We can see how applied science has impacted us (in no particular order) in the areas of medicine,"
I wonder if he has seen Star Trek 4?
Remember when Bones time traveled back to 20th century earth? He went into a hospital and shows disdain for his 20th century counterparts and compares their procedures to the Dark Ages and the Spanish Inquisition!
According to people in the future, Loftus will be something like a barbarian. A stupid and ancient person.
How would Loftus react to my future great, great, great, great, great, great, great, great grandson who dismisses his arguments as the rantings of a stupid moron? Who ignored his awesome book because Loftus belonged to a gullible, ignorant, and benighted people?
If John would deny their analysis, then would he also have to deny, by parity of reasoning, his analysis of people who lived two thousand years ago?
Pike said...Not only that, but there are still people today who practice everything that Loftus brings up. Granted, there aren't as many in America or other places in the West.
ReplyDeleteMy contention is that scientifically literate people are much much less superstitious than the ancients precisely because of modern science. That's us in the industrialized West! This would be non-controversial if it weren't for the blindness of your eyes due to your faith.
John W. Loftus,
ReplyDeleteYou wrote:
"My contention is that scientifically literate people are much much less superstitious than the ancients precisely because of modern science. That's us in the industrialized West."
You know, I was just in one of those marvels of modern, Western civilization - the elevator - the other day. I have actually been in many. In many different states too. And guess what, none of them had a space for the "13th" floor.
And again, I am wondering why such a scientifically enlightened individual as yourself keeps referring to things like "beliefs" and "intentions." You sound rather gullible. Invoking something as mysterious as "invisible propositional content" that allegedly "caused" things to happen in the real world, e.g., "sacrificing to the volcano god to appease his wrath." That's not very scientific, John. Why are you claiming that the propositional content of the ancient's beliefs is the cause of things that happened in the physical world. C'mon, you are "modern," right? You believe in the causal closure of the physical, right? Quit lying to people by telling them that "superstitious belief" is what caused things to happen in the world. It has nothing to do with the content of the belief, right? It has only to do with the firing pattern of certain neurons. Let's eliminate that folk psychology, John.
Hey, I'm just keeping my fellow modern, "smart guy," honest.
In my book I look at the superstitious nature of the stories in the Bible. I think I've only posted two examples, both of which can be found here. The cumulative effect of them all, in one of the longest chapters in my book made Guy Harrison say that chapter is "mind blowing."
ReplyDeleteGood luck with it, if and when you read it, or if and when your friends or family members do.
John W. Loftus,
ReplyDelete"that chapter is "mind blowing."
I agree. It blows my mind half the stuff you believe.
Hindu rituals in the Ganges (or the plethera of gods and goddesses on display throughout India), etc.
ReplyDeletePeter it's good to know that 2 centuries of a British presence and nearly a century of the Raj as well as a huge Portuguese presence in India isn't enough to be considered a Christian influence. I wonder why all their government documents and constitution are in English?
I'll let all my Indian Christian friends know that they lived in a backward society that had never had any Christian influence.
Also, I'm curious what part of Africa you are talking about as well, but I'll grant that there may still be some pockets of animism not influenced by Christianity ...
Yeah, cuz two centuries of forced colonial rule is so comparable to 2,000 years of cultural impact.
ReplyDeleteAt least I can take heart knowing that whenever I read something stupid you've written that you're still capable of writing something even stupider if we just give you enough time.
BTW, you do realize you've just made the claim England = Christianity, don't you?
ReplyDeleteWe are told that the reason people in the past could believe in and claim to experience miracles, while modern Western people supposedly cannot, is because, unlike us, ancient people were "naive and mythologically minded."
ReplyDeleteWho's telling us that, exactly?
If you want to know why it's fairly safe to assume that people in the past were likely to think uncritically about the supernatural then all the evidence you need is available in the present day. The vast majority of people are prone to a huge range of cognitive biases and a general tendency to be wrong about the nature of the world. As a very simple example, huge numbers of people believe that astrology provides insight into their characters and predictions about their future.
It seems entirely reasonable to conclude that people in the past thought in similar ways as people do today, and so entirely reasonable to conclude that people in the past would have shared this tendency to ascribe vague and supernatural rationales to a range of experiences. The difference between then and now is that we have more comprehensive education and better communication available to larger numbers of people, as well as a body of knowledge that describes the world more accurately than was previously possible.
Were any ancient people atheists?
Yes.
Paul C said:
ReplyDelete"If you want to know why it's fairly safe to assume that people in the past were likely to think uncritically about the supernatural then all the evidence you need is available in the present day. The vast majority of people are prone to a huge range of cognitive biases and a general tendency to be wrong about the nature of the world. As a very simple example, huge numbers of people believe that astrology provides insight into their characters and predictions about their future."
I wasn't addressing whether "The vast majority of people are prone to a huge range of cognitive biases and a general tendency to be wrong about the nature of the world." And the "simple example" you go on to give isn't enough to establish your assertion, much less is it enough to overturn my argument.
I was addressing the degree of gullibility in the ancient world as compared to the modern world, and I was addressing whether the degree that did exist in the past is sufficient to prevent Christianity from being credible. As I've said repeatedly, we have some advantages over past generations, as future generations will have advantages over us, but men like the apostle Peter and the apostle John didn't need to be biologists, physicists, or engineers in order to credibly report on an issue like whether they saw an empty tomb or where Jesus was born. Your astrology example involves issues that are more theoretical and less verifiable to contemporaries than something like a historical account of Jesus' life presented in one of the gospels.
To use an example I've mentioned before, if a janitor with no college education, who reads his horoscope in the newspaper every day, claims to have been a witness to a murder, his testimony will be accepted in a court of law. Even if he's carrying a good luck charm with him when he takes the stand during the trial, even if he's holding it in his hands as he speaks, no reasonable judge or jury is going to reject his testimony about the crime on that basis. Belief in something like horoscopes or good luck charms doesn't make people likely to have hallucinated, likely to have lied, etc. when they claim to have witnessed something like a murder. In many areas of life, such as our system of justice, we depend on people who lack discernment in other areas of their lives, people who don't have much education, who hold beliefs you would consider superstitious, etc.
And as Glenn Miller discusses in the article I linked to, there are varying degrees of commitment to these beliefs that you consider superstitious. To use an example that Miller cites, a doctor who turns to alternative medicine out of desperation, when his daughter has a fatal illness, doesn't thereby lose all credibility on medical issues, much less would we conclude that we can't trust what he reports about a traffic accident he claims to have witnessed, for example. People sometimes associate themselves with superstitious beliefs out of desperation. Or the association doesn't cost them much, so they don't give it much thought. Etc. Merely observing that people hold to or associate with some allegedly superstitious belief isn't enough. The analysis ought to be deeper than that, for reasons such as those explained by Glenn Miller.
There's no way to avoid making case-by-case judgments. Vague references to ancient practices we disagree with and the citation of specific incidents we disapprove of (such as John Loftus' frequent citation of the behavior of the Ephesians in Acts 19) aren't enough. A source like the apostle Paul or Luke has to be judged on his own merits. Some critics of Christianity do that, but often something like a reference to ancient belief in astrology or references to the scientific ignorance of ancient people is used as a substitute for the sort of detailed analysis of the relevant sources that needs to be done.
I was addressing the degree of gullibility in the ancient world as compared to the modern world, and I was addressing whether the degree that did exist in the past is sufficient to prevent Christianity from being credible.
ReplyDeleteJason: thanks for the answer, but you appear to have completely missed the point. There is no difference between the gullibility of people then and the gullibility of people now; the point being not that ancient people were as "smart" as us, but that we are as "stupid" as them.
As I've said repeatedly, we have some advantages over past generations, as future generations will have advantages over us, but men like the apostle Peter and the apostle John didn't need to be biologists, physicists, or engineers in order to credibly report on an issue like whether they saw an empty tomb or where Jesus was born.
We don't really have many - if any? - significant advantages from a cognitive point of view. Although we do have a "better" (more accurate) set of knowledge about how the world works, most people don't actually hold that knowledge in their heads; so any advantages are usually above that of the individual.
Belief in something like horoscopes or good luck charms doesn't make people likely to have hallucinated, likely to have lied, etc. when they claim to have witnessed something like a murder.
I didn't claim that it did, nor have I claimed that people were hallucinating or lying. My point is only that people make mistakes without even realising it - irrelevant of their level of education - and that cognitive and memory bias is neither deliberate or malicious. The example of horoscopes has less to do with "superstition" and more to do with confirmation bias - in much the same way as religious belief.
Paul C writes:
ReplyDelete"Jason: thanks for the answer, but you appear to have completely missed the point."
I didn't miss the point. I was summarizing my own points. My first paragraph explained that I wasn't addressing the issue you commented on. After that first paragraph, I was explaining what my posts were meant to convey.
You write:
"Although we do have a 'better' (more accurate) set of knowledge about how the world works, most people don't actually hold that knowledge in their heads; so any advantages are usually above that of the individual."
I think most people today, not just a minority, have a knowledge advantage. Even in poorer nations, a lot of information is conveyed through radio, television, photographs, mass production of literature, etc. An example that comes to mind is the shape of the earth. It seems likely to me that the number of drawings, photographs, television images, radio descriptions, etc. that exist relevant to that subject would be sufficient to give a majority of the world's population knowledge that the earth is spherical. I agree that much of our knowledge is limited to a minority of people, but my sense is that most people today have an overall knowledge advantage.
You write:
"I didn't claim that it did, nor have I claimed that people were hallucinating or lying."
I know. I was summarizing my position. Though I used your astrology example to illustrate one of my points, I also included references to John Loftus and "critics of Christianity".
You write:
"My point is only that people make mistakes without even realising it - irrelevant of their level of education - and that cognitive and memory bias is neither deliberate or malicious."
I agree.
So, just to be clear what my point is: "Ancient people" were just as likely as moderns to make the sort of mistakes that would lead them to adopt mistaken beliefs, such as religious beliefs for which they had little to no evidence; and we can see proof of this in the persistence of such beliefs today in both more and less developed countries.
ReplyDeletePaul C - Seeing the risen Jesus hardly counts as "little or no evidence."
ReplyDeleteAccepting your generalization says nothing about the specific cases we want to argue for, otherwise you'd be making a sweeping generalization.
Of course, I didn't mention Christianity specifically, because Christianity is in exactly the same position as other religions in this regard.
ReplyDeleteFeel free not to accept my "generalisation" - your rejection doesn't affect its veracity or validity in the least.
And we didn't mention atheology specifically because it's in the exact same position.....
ReplyDeleteAnd we didn't mention atheology specifically because it's in the exact same position.....
ReplyDeleteIf you mean "atheism", then yes. It is subject to exactly the same cognitive biases as any other belief.
However it differs from religious beliefs in one crucial way. Religious beliefs are generally based in a denial that there is little to no evidence for them, while atheism is generally based in the acceptance that there is little to no evidence for religious beliefs.
In atheism one must accept that there's no basis to believe anything, not just that there's no basis to believe in a deity of some kind. If there is no God, there is no rationality; you have to bootstrap your metaphysics and empistemology into existence, and that's a logical impossibility. If there is rationality, it presupposes the existence of some sort of God.
ReplyDeleteIf there is rationality, it presupposes the existence of some sort of God.
ReplyDeleteFalse. And don;t change the subject.
True, and it's not changing the subject.
ReplyDelete(Wow, we get so far with these types of responses.)
You said: "atheism is generally based in the acceptance that there is little to no evidence for religious beliefs"
To which I responded that the only way to have rationality at all is to hold to some concept of theism. How is this not a direct response to your claim? If you say "In atheism there is little to no evidence for religious belief" and my counter is that the only way you can weigh evidence in the first place is to have religious belief, that is quite germane to the discussion. So it is you who are trying to change the subject.
Now you said that my claim is false; but saying it is false is not demonstrating it is false. If it is possible for you to construct a way for us to know what is rational apart from stealing theistic ground, have at it. Demonstrate it.
I've already addressed this many times. In addition to the above link, you can just go to Google and type in "logic god peter pike site:triablogue.blogspot.com" (or better yet, click this hyperlink of it and it'll do it for you...) I've been over that ground many times, as you would see if you read it.
So I'll be waiting for you to construct your atheistic rationality...
You said: "atheism is generally based in the acceptance that there is little to no evidence for religious beliefs"
ReplyDeleteThat was in response to a question that was a logical if tenuous extension of the thread subject, which is the gullibility of peoples ancient and modern - not the philosophical grounding of rationality.
If it is possible for you to construct a way for us to know what is rational apart from stealing theistic ground, have at it. Demonstrate it.
1. Things are generally as I perceive them.
2. At my level of perception, the universe appears orderly.
3. If the universe is sufficiently orderly, then rationality is a useful tool.
One thing I noticed not being brought up: the argument of how much "ancient myth and belief" was, in fact, known to just be that, stories told for the sake of parable, or even entertainment.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if, two to five thousand years from now, some historian will look back and wonder how the technologically advanced 21st century could believe in tales of wandering, multi-species heroes (D&D, LotR and similar high fantasy,) exploits of star-wandering voyages (General Sci-Fi) and the exploits of secretive agents belonging to organizations that would be improbably covert (espionage thrillers.)