|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: So what was Israel supposed to do with all the orphans?
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Insisting on evidence is not close-minded. Insisting on some form of intellectual rigour is not close-minded. Reaching a firm decision based on evidence and intellectual rigour is not close-minded.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare:
"Charge of the Light Brigade was a military success"
Once again, I'm not qualified to assess historical opinions - I just heard a similar view on the radio yesterday and thought it was interesting. It might well be a totally unsupported minority view of the conflict.
I would more lay the charge that it helped cause more needless deaths in future campaigns.
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha - it was a Radio 4 programme yesterday morning - I heard it too. It said that the first report of everyone being killed was a mistaken first report from the front. I'm currently trying to find a link.
I would appreciate the link, thank you.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Insisting on evidence is not close-minded. Insisting on some form of intellectual rigour is not close-minded. Reaching a firm decision based on evidence and intellectual rigour is not close-minded.
Indeed.
And your point (in the context of this discussion) is.....?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Insisting on evidence is not close-minded. Insisting on some form of intellectual rigour is not close-minded. Reaching a firm decision based on evidence and intellectual rigour is not close-minded.
Indeed.
And your point (in the context of this discussion) is.....?
You seem to be calling everyone close-minded who believes the assertions above. We're not.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
You seem to be calling everyone close-minded who believes the assertions above. We're not.
Errmm... nope.
I am calling people closed-minded, who try to force an unproven position on other people.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Justinian
Shipmate
# 5357
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
You seem to be calling everyone close-minded who believes the assertions above. We're not.
Errmm... nope.
I am calling people closed-minded, who try to force an unproven position on other people.
And be using standards of proof under which a murderer's guilt wouldn't be proved if they were seen by 20 people plunging the knife into their victim on the grounds it could be a stunt by Derren Brown.
--------------------
My real name consists of just four letters, but in billions of combinations.
Eudaimonaic Laughter - my blog.
Posts: 3926 | From: The Sea Coast of Bohemia | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
I don't see how anti-zionism affects the specific topic of the destruction of Jericho.
It's glaringly obvious.
God commanded Israel to invade and occupy Canaan by driving out the inhabitants. How does that not provide a justification for Zionism?!
If it was shown that Wood's dates were definitely wrong, his worldview would be in serious trouble.
If it was shown that Kenyan's dates were definitely wrong, her worldview would not be in any kind of trouble.
Their vested interest is simply not the same. That's not to say that one or the other doesn't have bias. As you have pointed out (again), that is certainly the case. What you don't seem able to acknowledge is what the outworking of those biases means. You've just made the same point again, despite it already having been answered:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I find it unacceptable that a certain constituency of people should be singled at as being particularly prone to bias, whereas others are treated far more leniently.
It's not that a certain group of people are singled out as being prone to bias. It's that a certain group of people are being singled out as allowing (or being in danger of allowing) their biases to influence their approach to evidence.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
You seem to be calling everyone close-minded who believes the assertions above. We're not.
Errmm... nope.
I am calling people closed-minded, who try to force an unproven position on other people.
You're trying to get everyone else to admit that Joshua is possibly a true historical record of events.
The rest of us are going "maybe, but going on the best evidence, we're reasonably certain it's not."
We see a similar thing when we have Actual Climate Scientist and Oil-funded Denier on the telly together. Actual Climate Scientist will always admit to some doubt, but that it's pretty bloody unlikely that they and thousands of other scientists are wrong. All that Oil-funded Denier hears is "doubt", and thinks they've proved their point.
Again, there's nothing wrong with having reached a firm conclusion based on the available facts, subject to those facts changing. If you (or Wood - I'm pretty certain if he had those facts he'd have published them on his own website by now) have new information you'd like to bring to the table, I'll consider it. Otherwise, I'll stick with the conclusion I've already reached, namely, that it's unlikely that Jericho's walls fell in the 1400s BC, unlikely that an actual genocide of Canaanites took place, and unlikely that Joshua records a straightforward history of the Israelite invasion of Canaan.
Your position is unproven and contrary to key evidence. My position has considerable evidence behind it, while still allowing room for some doubt. That there is some room for doubt is not a weakness in my argument. It is a feature.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
That there is some room for doubt is not a weakness in my argument. It is a feature.
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) This needs to be shouted from the battlements.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
lilBuddha - it was a Radio 4 programme yesterday morning - I heard it too. It said that the first report of everyone being killed was a mistaken first report from the front. I'm currently trying to find a link.
I would appreciate the link, thank you.
Can't find it - it was part of something else and there are too many programmes it might be part of as there's lots of coverage currently on the history of Crimea. Someone effectively said the war correspondents weren't very good, William Howard Russell maybe, from digging around. This report was published in the Times and entered the public understanding, including Tennyson and his poem. I did find a paper saying that many histories now are undoing the initial impressions from reports at the time, which prove to be less than accurate, but I can't find anything that makes the claim I heard broadcast.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
No worries, CK. From pydseybare's link, the change in view seems more reinterpretation and supposition than any new evidence. Is this your impression from the radio interview?
If so, I would again lay the charge of more unnecessary deaths rather than credit for victories.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
No, it stuck in my mind because it was a fairly sweeping assertion that the reporting was totally inaccurate, that actually many of the 600 did survive, but the report filed was published and entered the collective psyche, reinforced by the poem. But it was a comment within a programme on reporting or the Ukraine situation or the history of Crimea and I can't remember who said it or which programme.
Which does make it a relevant comment for this discussion on accuracy of Biblical stories when an incident within the time of photography and newspapers, war reporting, telegraph and the beginning of the mass media should be disputed.
The comment I found on war reporting is here:
quote:
<snip> Wells offered the conventional wisdom that dailies provided a premature version of events instead of a “true chronicle” because they had no time to check references and to reflect on them. Hence, he asserted, audiences did not learn from later books but unlearned from them journalism’s prior misstatements that tended to accumulate as copy flowed in complementing or correcting earlier columns. <snip> source
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, I can understand your point, but the problem is that one can say this about anyone with any philosophical or theological position.
Right, to the extent that any philosophical or theological position is untestable by logic, science and reasoning. A position, as you'll recall, that I've made several times before.
Let me make it again: that God spoke to people in the OT and told them to massacre people is not anything that could ever be proven by science. In fact, I don't believe it is even anything that could be argued with logic.
quote:
I find it unacceptable that a certain constituency of people should be singled at as being particularly prone to bias, whereas others are treated far more leniently. For example, what evidence could ever shake Richard Dawkins' view of the origin of the universe and of life? I've seen enough of him through his writings and videos to know that he subscribes to what can only be described as "naturalism of the gaps" or "science will work it out one day". He has faith that the philosophy of naturalism will one day be vindicated, and nothing can shake him from that viewpoint. If there are any problems with, say, abiogenesis, or cosmology, it's not sufficient to cause him to question his particular form of fundamentalism.
Yes, but we're not here talking about Dawkins. I have read a lot of his material, I really appreciate his scientific skill in a lot of things, but in a lot of other areas he is using the old 'this is the way it is because I say so' argument. In some areas of which he sometimes speaks, he is not credible either.
In those areas of science where he has made a call, others argue with him about the facts and his conclusions. That doesn't mean that he is suddenly an inarguable source of knowledge on all things. Of course not, that is an utterly ridiculous idea.
quote:
And let us look at the mystics and existentialists, who say that their particular spiritual experience is the basis of what they believe about God and reality. Absolutely no evidence could ever shake them from their belief that they can rely on the feelings that they believe God has given them, because, by their own admission, such feelings are outside the investigation of evidence and reason. Therefore they also are fundamentalists.
Right, the difference, as I have pointed out so many times, is that they're not claiming their belief is based on scientific evidence. Indeed, many would claim that their knowledge is not obtainable by logic at all.
quote:
I agree that some so-called "Bible believing Christians" are totally closed minded, but such a state of mind is not confined to such people. In fact, I don't accept that such people even have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.
Irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that bible-believing Christians are the only group who are unable to see beyond their worldview.
quote:
As for the insinuation from your post that I am closed-minded and nothing could shake my viewpoint, I am very prepared to admit that I am wrong, and I have conceded arguments to my 'opponents' in debate quite a number of times. In fact, on this very thread Justinian seems to have overlooked the fact that I conceded that my statement that there was no evidence to doubt the historicity of the Jericho account was wrong:
quote:
I will admit that my statement above was wrong. Yes, OK, I concede that there is some evidence to question the literal interpretation of the events, but it is certainly not sufficient to conclude that those events did not occur.
I find it particularly bad form in debate to ignore a concession. But Justinian and others keep banging on about how my comment concerning the lack of evidence was wrong, when I have already admitted it!
Again, this is irrelevant. Your point was wrong by such a degree that you've been attempting to row-back from it ever since. In fact, there are very good reasons for thinking that the evidence in the OT of the destruction of Jericho is not correct. You've not conceded that point, you've just repeatedly stated that you want to believe it to be true and pointed at a very narrow (and disputed) piece of material as evidence.
This has the air of desperation of the person who wants to believe that the female filmstar he is stalking is in love with him - on the flimsy evidence of a pro-forma letter he once received. Most reasonable people would say that such a stalker was being delusional.
I think, at very best you are being delusional in the same way.
quote:
The fact that they clearly don't accept my concession can only mean that they are simply not happy to leave the issue in a state of doubt and ambiguity, in which evidence is inconclusive, but rather that they insist that I should submit to their position. In other words, they appear to be imposing their form of fundamentalism on me. Clearly I am not the fundamentalist in this debate, because I am prepared to keep an open mind by acknowledging the difficulties in drawing a definitive conclusion from the evidence.
What rot. So far from being the case that there is no point in even refuting it line-by-line.
quote:
If you or anyone else insists that I should interpret evidence in accordance with your particular viewpoint, when the evidence is clearly inconclusive, then you have no grounds to accuse me of closed-minded fundamentalism. I think that is rather obvious!
As I have said, I don't believe this evidence amounts to anything anyway, and it would make no difference to me if there were ever evidence to prove that the destruction of Jericho happened exactly as stated in the OT.
My problem is not with whether the massacre happened, but whether God ordered it. You tell me, what possible proof could there be for deciding whether God actually said those things to the Israelites?
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
No worries, CK. From pydseybare's link, the change in view seems more reinterpretation and supposition than any new evidence. Is this your impression from the radio interview?
If so, I would again lay the charge of more unnecessary deaths rather than credit for victories.
Let me say once again that I am not an expert on these points and am trained in philosophy and science and not history.
As to the facts, there appears to exist reliable first hand records as to the casualties from the charge - which appears to suggest a casualty rate of 40% - 110 killed, 130 wounded out of 658 cavalrymen.
The impression given in Russell's original Times report was that all, or nearly all of the British died, a point obliquely infered by Tennyson's poem which was based on the news report.
As to whether the charge was or was not pointless, whether it had a serious military target, whether it scared the Russians into surrender and so on is not anything I can comment upon.
But I would reiterate the point made by others above that history is interpretation of the facts. Frequently the reality is far removed from the memory, the emotions and the politics of the events.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical
I agree that some so-called "Bible believing Christians" are totally closed minded, but such a state of mind is not confined to such people. In fact, I don't accept that such people even have a monopoly on closed-mindedness.
Irrelevant. Nobody has claimed that bible-believing Christians are the only group who are unable to see beyond their worldview.
Well, I am glad you now admit that the claim you made on p.4 of this thread is now irrelevant.
Shall I remind you?
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
wow, that was difficult:
quote:
The first group includes the fundamentalists, who believe in the reliability of the biblical text in all its details, and that the text forms the basis and guide for their archaeological work. I can mention, for example, Bryant Wood and his work on Jericho (e.g. Wood 1990), and Adam Zertal, who restored an imaginary altar on Mount Ebal on the basis of the biblical text (e.g. Zertal 1986–87). Both of them, as well as other scholars of this group, are good, professional archaeologists, but their archaeological work is clearly biased and distorted by their views on the biblical text.
Ussishkin, D. (2007). Questions of methodology. In Proceedings of the British Academy (Vol. 143, pp. 131-141).
So Wood is a "good, professional archaeologist", but he must be 'clearly' biased, because he's a fundie. No other reason.
Given that bias can affect anyone with any philosophical position, and given that all scientists are led by certain assumptions, then any fair-minded person would have to conclude that the argument you quoted is completely redundant.
But this is an example of singling out so-called Bible believers for special censure.
quote:
Again, this is irrelevant. Your point was wrong by such a degree that you've been attempting to row-back from it ever since. In fact, there are very good reasons for thinking that the evidence in the OT of the destruction of Jericho is not correct. You've not conceded that point, you've just repeatedly stated that you want to believe it to be true and pointed at a very narrow (and disputed) piece of material as evidence.
Where have I repeated that I "want to believe it to be true".
Please could you provide the relevant quote from my comments. Since you claim to be so concerned about evidence, then this is not really a lot to ask, is it?
quote:
This has the air of desperation of the person who wants to believe that the female filmstar he is stalking is in love with him - on the flimsy evidence of a pro-forma letter he once received. Most reasonable people would say that such a stalker was being delusional.
I think, at very best you are being delusional in the same way.
You make an absurd comment like that and accuse me of desperation!! Sheesh!!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I am glad you now admit that the claim you made on p.4 of this thread is now irrelevant.
How is that irrelevant? Saying that inerrantists are biased with reference to biblical archaeology is obviously not to say that others are also not biased.
quote:
So Wood is a "good, professional archaeologist", but he must be 'clearly' biased, because he's a fundie. No other reason.
Well strictly speaking the point I was making was that his worldview means that he wants to interpret facts in a certain way.
quote:
Given that bias can affect anyone with any philosophical position, and given that all scientists are led by certain assumptions, then any fair-minded person would have to conclude that the argument you quoted is completely redundant.
How do you get to that?
Someone has a worldview which means that their conclusions are unsafe in a particular thing. Other people have biased. Therefore it doesn't matter that some worldviews are overwhelmingly biased.
Rubbish. What are you talking about?
quote:
But this is an example of singling out so-called Bible believers for special censure.
Nope, it is saying that when someone has a biased worldview that is as overwhelming as this one appears to be, there is reason to believe that the evidence supplied which obviously has an impact on that worldview is not credible.
As I have said previously, it is very unlikely that Dr Wood's views on tea-making (or many many other areas) would lack credibility.
quote:
Where have I repeated that I "want to believe it to be true".
Please could you provide the relevant quote from my comments. Since you claim to be so concerned about evidence, then this is not really a lot to ask, is it?
Nope, being as most of us are not literalists on language, it is obvious to us that you can repeat a point without actually stating it fully each time.
quote:
You make an absurd comment like that and accuse me of desperation!! Sheesh!!
Refute it then. Prove to us that you're not just delusional and hanging on to this disputed evidence because it happens to superficially support your position - despite the fact that the overwhelming evidence and scholarly opinion is in the opposite direction.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
How is that irrelevant? Saying that inerrantists are biased with reference to biblical archaeology is obviously not to say that others are also not biased.
There is not one single shred of evidence in what you quoted that proves - or even suggests - that Dr Wood is biased. The fact that he works under a hypothesis, namely the truthfulness of the Bible, is no different from what any other researcher does. For example, science itself could not work unless we accept the principle of the uniformity of the laws of physics and chemistry. Now suppose evidence emerges that challenges this assumption (for example, the double slit experiment). Do scientists suddenly jettison their prior assumption, or do they suspend judgment until further evidence becomes available?
But no. The moment some piece of evidence appears to challenge the historicity of the biblical accounts, certain indignant and insistent voices demand that the researcher concludes that the biblical account is false. But those same voices would not apply the same rule to the assumptions undergirding the whole of the rest of science.
Which rather proves my point.
quote:
Well strictly speaking the point I was making was that his worldview means that he wants to interpret facts in a certain way.
Well, according to that 'reasoning' (which is actually a form of the genetic fallacy) I could say that you are only saying what you say because you want to. Anyone can accuse anyone else of this. It's very poor thinking, and it has no place in any kind of sensible debate.
If I take this idea to its logical conclusion, am I to believe that you hold the position you do, because you don't actually want to? After all, if you wanted to hold this position, then, of course, by your own (fallacious) reasoning, that undermines its veracity.
Do keep up...
quote:
Refute it then. Prove to us that you're not just delusional and hanging on to this disputed evidence because it happens to superficially support your position - despite the fact that the overwhelming evidence and scholarly opinion is in the opposite direction.
I assume that you have heard of the concept of "burden of proof"?
Or maybe not....?
Yeah, I mean, the police knock on my door and accuse me of having assaulted someone in the local park. They offer no convincing evidence (although they did take a vote down the station and the majority of coppers reckon I must have done it), and their whole case can be summed up in one declaration: "Prove that you didn't do it!!"
What a joke. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
There is not one single shred of evidence in what you quoted that proves - or even suggests - that Dr Wood is biased. The fact that he works under a hypothesis, namely the truthfulness of the Bible, is no different from what any other researcher does.
Yes it is. Very different from most other researchers, in fact so different that other people in his field think this makes his work non credible.
quote:
For example, science itself could not work unless we accept the principle of the uniformity of the laws of physics and chemistry. Now suppose evidence emerges that challenges this assumption (for example, the double slit experiment). Do scientists suddenly jettison their prior assumption, or do they suspend judgment until further evidence becomes available?
True but irrelevant.
quote:
But no. The moment some piece of evidence appears to challenge the historicity of the biblical accounts, certain indignant and insistent voices demand that the researcher concludes that the biblical account is false. But those same voices would not apply the same rule to the assumptions undergirding the whole of the rest of science.
I'm not demanding anything, I'm just saying that Dr Wood's views are not credible for the reasons given above - namely the known existence of a worldview to which he subscribes, the fact he doesn't work for a credible institution, the fact he doesn't publish his work in peer reviewed journals, the fact that his views are in a massive minority. All of which speak to his credibility.
quote:
Well, according to that 'reasoning' (which is actually a form of the genetic fallacy) I could say that you are only saying what you say because you want to. Anyone can accuse anyone else of this. It's very poor thinking, and it has no place in any kind of sensible debate.
Bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about yet again. It is no fallacy to judge someone based on something they profess to be a worldview if the thing they're saying obviously likely to be strongly influenced by the worldview.
Every person wants to be consistent. If you have an prior attachment to a view of the bible as being literally true in every respect, clearly that is going to colour the way you view historical evidence which speaks (or you believe speaks) to that view - as you have here shown.
quote:
If I take this idea to its logical conclusion, am I to believe that you hold the position you do, because you don't actually want to? After all, if you wanted to hold this position, then, of course, by your own (fallacious) reasoning, that undermines its veracity.
Do keep up...
If I claim to believe I have found evidence and reasoned something via the scientific process which subsequently is shown to have been rather convenient with regard to my widely published worldview, then yes, others have a right to question my credibility.
If I'm making that statement on a bulletin board, that is one thing. But if I'm claiming this is strong evidence of the verasity of my worldview, then others have the absolute right to question my credibility.
quote:
I assume that you have heard of the concept of "burden of proof"?
Or maybe not....?
Yeah, I mean, the police knock on my door and accuse me of having assaulted someone in the local park. They offer no convincing evidence (although they did take a vote down the station and the majority of coppers reckon I must have done it), and their whole case can be summed up in one declaration: "Prove that you didn't do it!!"
What a joke.
I am interpreting the words you have used on this thread - and I believe they indicate that you are delusional for the reasons I have given. I don't have to supply any other burden of proof, it is now down to you to show that my interpretation is wrong.
Yet again, you show a total lack of knowledge of the terms you are using.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by pydseybare
Yes it is. Very different from most other researchers, in fact so different that other people in his field think this makes his work non credible.
Two sentences which are merely assertions, the only 'hint' of evidence being an appeal to the opinions of "other people in his field", who themselves provide no supporting evidence for their assertions!
Therefore a meaningless appeal to authority (another logical fallacy).
quote:
True but irrelevant.
It is hugely relevant, as I explained. But clearly you didn't understand the point, hence your repetition of an already refuted assertion. (Another fallacy).
quote:
I'm not demanding anything, I'm just saying that Dr Wood's views are not credible for the reasons given above - namely the known existence of a worldview to which he subscribes, the fact he doesn't work for a credible institution, the fact he doesn't publish his work in peer reviewed journals, the fact that his views are in a massive minority. All of which speak to his credibility.
The ad hominem is also a known logical fallacy.
Doing well, aren't we?
quote:
Bullshit. You don't know what you are talking about yet again. It is no fallacy to judge someone based on something they profess to be a worldview if the thing they're saying obviously likely to be strongly influenced by the worldview.
Every person wants to be consistent. If you have an prior attachment to a view of the bible as being literally true in every respect, clearly that is going to colour the way you view historical evidence which speaks (or you believe speaks) to that view - as you have here shown.
Oh dear oh dear. So someone who wants to believe something to be true therefore lacks credibility when researching that subject. Therefore, according to "pydseyian logic", we have to make sure that we are either totally apathetic about the subject being researched or we are inimical to it, in order to secure our credibility. What utter tosh!
quote:
I am interpreting the words you have used on this thread - and I believe they indicate that you are delusional for the reasons I have given. I don't have to supply any other burden of proof, it is now down to you to show that my interpretation is wrong.
"I am interpreting..."; "I believe...". Yeah. It's what's going on in your mind, and therefore the burden of proof is on you, because you have made the accusation. That's how reason works. If it's not to your particular liking, then tough.
So we have had so far...
1. The appeal to authority.
2. Bare assertion (while ignoring prior refutation).
3. The ad hominem.
4. The genetic fallacy.
5. Misplacing the burden of proof.
FIVE logical fallacies in just one post!
And to top it all, the person making these fallacious arguments talks about CREDIBILITY!!!!!
I congratulate you on this quite remarkable feat!!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
Just... stop. Please. This is just embarrassing.
Another post packed full of irrefutable evidence, I see!
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
pydseybare
Shipmate
# 16184
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Two sentences which are merely assertions, the only 'hint' of evidence being an appeal to the opinions of "other people in his field", who themselves provide no supporting evidence for their assertions!
Therefore a meaningless appeal to authority (another logical fallacy).
Wrong, I'm not appealing to authority, I am assessing credibility.
quote:
It is hugely relevant, as I explained. But clearly you didn't understand the point, hence your repetition of an already refuted assertion. (Another fallacy).
Sigh. I have already said that scientific knowledge fits within the existing framework of that knowledge. Hence you can't just make claims about observed phenomena and claim that you are being scientific outwith of the understood framework with any credibility. Hence you are refuting a point I haven't made.
Working within the framework of science is not the same as working within the framework of a religious (or other) worldview.
quote:
The ad hominem is also a known logical fallacy.
Doing well, aren't we?
And as I have explained to you, it is not an ad hominem to judge someone on the words that they've used about themselves.
quote:
Oh dear oh dear. So someone who wants to believe something to be true therefore lacks credibility when researching that subject. Therefore, according to "pydseyian logic", we have to make sure that we are either totally apathetic about the subject being researched or we are inimical to it, in order to secure our credibility. What utter tosh!
No, but one does have to use the available mechanisms to prove that you are not, in fact, just being biased in favour of your preconceived ideas - by publishing in peer reviewed journals, by working for a credible university, by having the respect of your colleagues.. and so on.
quote:
"I am interpreting..."; "I believe...". Yeah. It's what's going on in your mind, and therefore the burden of proof is on you, because you have made the accusation. That's how reason works. If it's not to your particular liking, then tough.
I have already offered proof though. You just don't like it.
quote:
So we have had so far...
1. The appeal to authority.
2. Bare assertion (while ignoring prior refutation).
3. The ad hominem.
4. The genetic fallacy.
5. Misplacing the burden of proof.
FIVE logical fallacies in just one post!
Bullshit. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about or what logical fallacies actually look like.
quote:
And to top it all, the person making these fallacious arguments talks about CREDIBILITY!!!!!
I congratulate you on this quite remarkable feat!!
Way to go for avoiding the point.
--------------------
"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future."
Posts: 812 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Yet more bare assertions.
QED
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs
If it was shown that Wood's dates were definitely wrong, his worldview would be in serious trouble.
If it was shown that Kenyan's dates were definitely wrong, her worldview would not be in any kind of trouble.
Their vested interest is simply not the same. That's not to say that one or the other doesn't have bias. As you have pointed out (again), that is certainly the case. What you don't seem able to acknowledge is what the outworking of those biases means. You've just made the same point again, despite it already having been answered:
But you are assuming that they are actually driven by vested interest. You have failed to make any case that Dr Wood is driven by vested interest other than the bare assumption that he must be because of his view of biblical inerrancy.
In fact, it is not even true that his view of biblical inerrancy would be in trouble if Kenyon's date was found to be correct, because inerrancy itself is a topic subject to debate and qualification. Or to be more accurate and relevant to this case: biblical chronology is a topic subject to considerable debate (even within conservative theology). Here is an example.
You are making an assumption about Dr Wood's way of thinking that is without evidential foundation. Instead of just looking at the evidence, and evaluating it on its own merits, you try to prejudge Dr Wood's motives and psychology. That is not a scholarly way of dealing with any subject. I would suggest that it's a way of avoiding any consideration of the evidence.
quote:
It's not that a certain group of people are singled out as being prone to bias. It's that a certain group of people are being singled out as allowing (or being in danger of allowing) their biases to influence their approach to evidence.
The two sentences in that paragraph contradict each other.
"Prone to bias" means in effect: "allowing their biases to influence their approach to evidence". If someone does not allow their biases to influence their approach to evidence, then it follows that, in reality, they are not "prone to bias", unless 'bias' means nothing more than "holding a particular position", which, of course, is true of everyone, thus rendering your comment meaningless.
The fact is that Miss Kenyon had (as far as I have read) strong views on the subject of Zionism. It is not for me to judge whether her anti-Zionist views were less strong than Dr Wood's inerrantist views.
It is not for you to judge either.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Yet more bare assertions.
QED
If you're concerned about assertions with evidence attached, you could try addressing this post.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I will certainly look into the claims of Justinian's article, when I have a bit more time.
Meanwhile, since I am required to do a shedload of work, others may like to apply themselves to study the pottery evidence, instead of just ignoring it.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But you are assuming that they are actually driven by vested interest. You have failed to make any case that Dr Wood is driven by vested interest other than the bare assumption that he must be because of his view of biblical inerrancy.
No, and no. I have said that he is in danger of being driven by vested interest because of his worldview, whereas Kenyan isn't. Her worldview might put her in danger of being driven by vested interest if in another sphere, but in this one, it's not an issue.
It's a straightforward point, which has perhaps been clouded by the different uses of the word 'bias' - worldview is a more useful word. If our worldview has the potential of being under attack by something we encounter, our objectivity towards the thing we have encountered is in danger.
It makes no difference to an anti-zionist worldview when, or even if Jericho was sacked.
It makes a huge difference to a biblical literalist viewpoint if Jericho was sacked, when it was, and who by.
In this specific case, Wood's worldview puts him in danger of being biased. As Barnabas62 points out, he might not be biased. But it's a real possibility. It's simply not the same for Kenyan in this case - she has nothing to lose either way.
If we were talking about the modern Israel's borders, then Kenyan's anti-zionist worldview would put her in danger of being biased, because her views could well affect her objectivity.
Worldviews affect our approach to things and our objectivity, all of us. But not equally; it depends what is being talked about, and how self-aware and open we are. We see it with climate change science and a whole bunch of other things. It's a simple principle: a lack of, or a reduced vested interest correlates with objectivity.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
goperryrevs -
It does not follow that Kenyon's dating is fatal to Wood's inerrantist worldview, as I pointed out earlier. The concept of "biblical inerrancy" is subject to interpretation, and biblical chronology is also under debate.
So I don't see or accept your viewpoint.
But if you are right, then you are effectively saying this: anyone who approaches evidence with a prior assumption that the Bible is true, must be regarded as someone lacking credibility.
Why not also say the same for someone who assumes that the Bible can't be true? The same argument applies. After all, just think how fatal the evidence for a miracle (say the resurrection of Jesus Christ) is to the atheist worldview?
In fact, I would like to turn your argument on its head by saying that evidence for merely natural events are not damaging to the theistic worldview, because God can co-exist with merely natural events (His existence is not dependent on the miraculous), whereas evidence for the miraculous is damaging to the atheistic worldview. Therefore the theistic worldview is far more robust than the atheistic one. I am well aware that we are not debating around the distinction between theism and atheism in general terms, but I am simply making the point that this problem of 'bias' - or "perceived bias" - cannot be confined to a religious / spiritual worldview. The non-religious could have even more of a problem with this.
As for Zionism: well, I don't think it takes too much imagination to infer that Zionists will try to fashion arguments from ancient history to justify their occupation of Palestine. Any event that could provide that justification - such as the destruction of Jericho - is therefore damaging to anti-Zionism. I am not saying that Kenyon was biased, but her viewpoint exposes her to bias as much as Wood's viewpoint exposes him.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
The thing is, though, EE, the pottery evidence neither confirms nor denies the veracity of the Biblical account.
That's not the point.
The point isn't whether Jericho was sacked and destroyed but whether it occurred in the way the book of Joshua presents it.
All I've been saying, all along, is that the Book of Joshua is written in the genre of ancient historiography - and like all works of that period takes a different approach to history to the way that we do today.
The pottery evidence might well be very interesting in terms of establishing dates for when the fall of Jericho took place - but it wouldn't establish whether the walls fell down when the Israelites blew trumpets or whether Rahab the Prostitute lived in this, that or the other section of wall.
It's all very interesting but doesn't have a great deal of bearing on the OP.
'The Bible is true and some of it actually happened.'
Unless some mass grave turned up with men, women and children all tumbled into it then we have no external corroboration for the Joshua account at all.
Even if we found a cemetery tomorrow there'd still be debate on how we interpreted the evidence.
However we understand OT history, I think it's pretty axiomatic that we are not dealing with descriptions of events in the contemporary sense. That doesn't mean that these events didn't take place, but it is to acknowledge what appears to me to be pretty self evident - that the OT accounts contain both history and mythology at one and the same time.
What I can't understand is what that should be such a contentious acknowledgement.
It's not as if atheism or a denial of any supernatural agency whatsoever is predicated on this approach.
It's only a difficulty if one persists to holding on to a rather modernist fundie approach popularised around 1900.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
EE, I have only made one straightforward point, which I don't think is that hard to grasp. I don't know why you're struggling with it so much.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But if you are right, then you are effectively saying this: anyone who approaches evidence with a prior assumption that the Bible is true, must be regarded as someone lacking credibility.
No I am not. That is a huge leap from what I actually said. Saying someone is in danger of being biased is nowhere near saying that they must lack credibility. They might, they might not.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Why not also say the same for someone who assumes that the Bible can't be true? The same argument applies.
It does, and I would. If someone is out to prove the Bible wrong, I'd say that they are also in danger of bias.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
After all, just think how fatal the evidence for a miracle (say the resurrection of Jesus Christ) is to the atheist worldview?
Yes, it is, I have always thought that.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am simply making the point that this problem of 'bias' - or "perceived bias" - cannot be confined to a religious / spiritual worldview. The non-religious could have even more of a problem with this.
I never said it was confined to a religious / spiritual worldview, and I don't know why you think I think it would be. But it depends on the issue that we're talking about. For example, if we were talking about something miraculous, then both a prior belief or disbelief in miracles could well become bias. Someone who was agnostic on the subject of miracles would not be so likely to be biased.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
As for Zionism: well, I don't think it takes too much imagination to infer that Zionists will try to fashion arguments from ancient history to justify their occupation of Palestine. Any event that could provide that justification - such as the destruction of Jericho - is therefore damaging to anti-Zionism. I am not saying that Kenyon was biased, but her viewpoint exposes her to bias as much as Wood's viewpoint exposes him.
As much as? No way. Even if her viewpoint does bring some bias (which I doubt), it is nowhere near as much as Wood's. His worldview is entirely dependent on events in the Bible being literally, historically true. If those events are shown not to have happened, or happened differently, his worldview collapses. There is no equivalence; her worldview survives either eventuality.
Again, that's not to say Wood is necessarily dishonest, wrong, or lacks credibility, or any of the things that you appear to think I am saying. And it's not to say that Kenyan is necessarily right and objective either. All it says is that there is a fair risk that Wood will interpret the data to fit his beliefs, and he should have to work all the harder to show that this isn't the case. This isn't a binary "is biased"/"isn't biased", and my point is a general one about vested interest having the potential to influence objectivity.
The only point I have made on this thread is that Wood's vested interest in giving a certain date for the sacking of Jericho is larger than Kenyan's. That's it. Despite that vested interest, he might be right. But... for reasons that others have given, it appears that he has indeed allowed his beliefs to influence his science.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Yep, Goperryrevs, exactly right.
It seems to me that it is always the fundies who paint themselves into such tight corners. Be it atheist fundies or theistic ones.
A fair bit of latitude gives room to breathe. All these more prescriptive people are squeezing themselves into a very tight staitjacket.
There's no need for them to do so.
There is no need to take the slant that the Book of Joshua is 100% historically accurate in every detail. No reason whatsoever.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
However we understand OT history, I think it's pretty axiomatic that we are not dealing with descriptions of events in the contemporary sense. That doesn't mean that these events didn't take place, but it is to acknowledge what appears to me to be pretty self evident - that the OT accounts contain both history and mythology at one and the same time.
Self-evident?
OK, so if it is 'self-evident' that the account of the fall of Jericho in the book of Joshua contains a description of events, which (or some of which), strictly speaking, did not actually happen (even though the narrative may have some kind of symbolic, metaphorical or didactic value), then please could you show me the particular wording in the account, which reveals this startlingly obvious truth.
'Self-evident' is an extremely strong term, so your claim ought to be incontestably obvious from the narrative. Therefore, it is not unreasonable of me to ask you to produce this evidence.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
No, it's not unreasonable.
It's self-evident, I would suggest, in terms of the genre. As I've said before, Joshua, like all the other OT histories, is a piece of ancient historiography. So it's not unreasonable to suggest that it would share the characteristics of that genre - ie. a mix of literal history and mythology.
If you're looking at Herodotus or Tacitus or Caesar's Gallic Wars or any other ancient history do you expect to find textual references that explain that what we're dealing with is a mixture of fact and mythology?
No, of course not.
So why should such 'evidence' be forthcoming in the Book of Joshua?
I was in the British Library the other day reading a 17th century publication and although it was clearly an eyewitness account of certain conversations and events it, too, mixed elements of mythology, 'prophecy' and so on.
That's how these kind of writings work.
That's the self-evident part.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I must admit that that is the weirdest example of 'self-evident' that I have ever seen.
The *Mother* of all circular arguments!!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
Since fiction makes every effort to be internally consistent, it's highly unlikely to find any evidence in the text that the events described in the book didn't actually happen.
What evidence from the text of The Lord of the Rings can we use to ascertain that the events of the War of the Ring didn't happen? I'd argue, none at all.
So we have to look outside the text itself in order to work out what it is. Likewise with the Book of Joshua. Again, an utterly uncontroversial point.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Exactly, Doc Tor.
So what was Gamaliel on about, I wonder?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Highlighting something you'd apparently overlooked - as far as I could see - which was that there's no point in looking for textual confirmation within Joshua that it contains a mixture of fact and mythology.
Because you ain't gonna find it any more than you are going to find a similar statement in Lord of The Rings.
I'm not sure you've understood the Doc Tor's salient point but we'll let that pass.
Just because something - The Lord of the Rings - doesn't say, 'Look, this is fiction' - doesn't mean that it isn't fiction.
I'm not saying that the Book of Joshua is fiction. I'm saying it's a mixture of fact and mythology - like any other ancient historical text whether scriptural or otherwise.
It needn't say that in the text for it to be the case. Indeed, why would it need to say it in the text as it was axiomatic at the time it was written that this was how these things worked.
That's the point I'm making.
If I've understood yours, I apologise. But I rather suspect you've miusunderstood mine.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Indeed, why would it need to say it in the text as it was axiomatic at the time it was written that this was how these things worked.
And the evidence that it was "axiomatic at the time it was written that this was how these things worked" is...?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Exactly that. How ancient texts work. That's what is axiomatic.
It's axiomatic that ancient texts work like that because all the studies show them to work like that. That's how they were written. That's how the work. There is plenty of literary and scholarly evidence to that effect.
Show me an ancient historiography that is not a combination of literal history - or what passed for 'history' in that sense - and mythology.
Historians are broadly agreed, for instance, that the Books of the Maccabees in the Apocrypha/Deutero-canonical represent a reasonable accurate picture of the course of events of the Jewish revolt ...
What they don't accept is the literal accuracy of all the details.
Now, I'm wondering what kind of evidence you'd accept - other than a passage inserted somewhere in Joshua or in Judges that says, 'Look folks, this is an ancient historical text and as such doesn't deal with history in the way people in later generations will. It's 3 parts fact and 2 parts myth ...'
I don't know why I have to spell things out so much. The obduracy is all on one side here is seems to me.
'I won't believe until you show me the evidence ...'
And then when evidence is provided it is invariably dismissed. Yet the rest of us are expected to swallow the evidence you provide from highly partial sources with a vested interest in particular pieces of pottery dating from particular points in time.
Even if the pottery you've become excited about does confirm the date of the sacking of Jericho - and I've got no axe to grind on the dating at all - then it still doesn't prove that the Book of Joshua is different from other ancient historiographies in that it simply puts forward sober fact in a documentary form ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel
Exactly that. How ancient texts work. That's what is axiomatic.
It's axiomatic that ancient texts work like that because all the studies show them to work like that. That's how they were written. That's how the work. There is plenty of literary and scholarly evidence to that effect.
So you are saying that every single apparently historical account from the Ancient World* must include some elements which are basically not true (i.e. descriptions of events which did not actually happen), and that there is plenty of literary and scholarly evidence to show that this phenomenon should be regarded as axiomatic.
And the evidence for this extraordinary (and almost certainly bogus) claim is....?
Citations please.
*"Ancient World" defined as....?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I'm not sure you've understood the Doc Tor's salient point but we'll let that pass.
No, he didn't understand the point. You have. I understand yours, too.
EE, "every single history from the ancient world"? Hell, every single history written. It's only quite recently that historians have concerned themselves with veracity.
From Gilgamesh, through the Iliad, the Gallic Wars, Bayeux tapestry and onwards to the contemporary histories of the British Empire, pretty much every important source of history we have is constructed to tell a story. Working out what the story is and who's telling it is almost the first part of sorting through the text to see where the fictions might be.
The more ancient the text, the more difficult it gets - which is why for centuries, it was assumed the Iliad was purely fictional, and Troy never existed. Joshua, which predates the Iliad (at least in the events it purports to describe), mentions recognisable place names, but if you want to take God's words to Joshua as what God actually said to Joshua, are you going to take the reported speech of Zeus in the Iliad with similar seriousness?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
EE, "every single history from the ancient world"? Hell, every single history written. It's only quite recently that historians have concerned themselves with veracity.
If Gamaliel's claim is true that it is axiomatic - i.e. self-evident - that apparently historical accounts from the as yet undefined "Ancient World" must include fictional elements, then his rule must apply to every single account, otherwise, by definition, the rule is not axiomatic!
I would have thought that was obvious.
So therefore I want to see evidence that this axiom exists.
Where is it?
Claiming that because we know that the Ancient World produced certain stories, means that all accounts from the same period must be at least partly fictional, is a non sequitur.
Just what sort of 'logic' is that?
[ 10. March 2014, 22:35: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
So therefore I want to see evidence that this axiom exists.
No, you don't. What you want is to talk to some historians who specialise in interpreting ancient texts and ask them which of the texts they deal with contain mythic elements. If they answer, pretty much all of them, then there you go.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
Doc Tor -
Quite clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word 'axiom'.
Gamaliel made a claim that it is 'self-evident' that "ancient texts" contain mythic elements. This claim is so extreme and incredible, that it requires substantiation.
So where is the evidence of this 'axiom'? Asking for the opinions of certain historians is fair enough, as long as we ask the following questions:
1. Which periods of ancient history are we talking about?
2. Why is it assumed that the historiography of every nation in a given period, should follow the same principles?
3. On what basis does the contemporary historian judge an account to be 'myth'? What is the philosophical basis of this judgment?
4. If 'myth' is a part of historical accounts, then what function did it serve, and how can we establish that without resorting to subjective judgments?
I would have thought that a self-proclaimed 'expert' like Gamaliel, who seems to give the impression that he knows what he is talking about, would be only too eager to answer these questions.
So I await his response...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Porridge
Shipmate
# 15405
|
Posted
EE, would you permit a little digression that takes us into less heated waters?
Back in my undergraduate days, I was an English major and swotted up barely enough Anglo-Saxon to slog through Beowulf and Judith with glossaries in hand, along with a few other texts from (very) roughly a thousand years ago. Not, perhaps, ancient enough to qualify here. But bear with me.
Unlike Joshua’s account of Jericho, no scholars supposed then (when I studied the thing) or now that the events described in Beowulf presented an accurate historical account. They couldn’t suppose such a thing; the poem closes with Beowulf, the hero of the story, dying from wounds sustained in a fight with a dragon.
I’m not myself a scholar, but any serious scholar of Anglo-Saxon literature claiming that Beowulf = history would make headlines, since I think we all accept that dragons, in the form of fire-breathing, treasure-horde-guarding, flying reptiles, do not, nor have ever, existed. Dragons are mythological. Since the poem clearly contains at least one mythological element, there’s reason to suppose it may contain others – like Grendel and his mother, for example: monsters whom Beowulf slays.
Yet assorted archaeological finds, and researches into other texts from the relevant period, confirm that at least some of the individuals mentioned in Beowulf did exist. It turns out that there was in fact a Danish King Hrothgar, for example (he’s the king to whose aid Beowulf, a Geatish hero, came in the poem); Hrothgar did live at Hereot (the Great Hall mentioned in the poem). Archaeological digs have found what is widely supposed to be Hereot. Further, there are references in the poem to events that are known to have happened, as they’re described in other texts from the times.
In short, Beowulf, an epic poem, contains a mix of fact and fancy, like the Iliad and others mentioned above. Mentions of monsters and dragons in Beowulf doesn’t discredit the mentions of known historical figures and descriptions of events confirmed elsewhere. Nor does mention of historical persons, places, and events confirm the existence of the dragon which wounds Beowulf at the end. They simply both co-exist in the same poem. The real question here is why. Why do we so consistently find such mixes of fact and fancy in literature written before modern times?
It’s simple: these texts were written for specific purposes. They’re neither journalism nor history. They’re celebrations of heroism, and of peoples, and of those peoples’ triumphs and victories – their great moments. These texts were weren’t compiled as precise reports of what happened; they were compiled to celebrate and inspire the efforts, sacrifices, and loyalties of a people (and their great warriors / leaders / heroes) to claim the destiny they believed their God (or gods) to have created them for.
I don't recall which side of the pond you inhabit, but perhaps you're familiar with the US national anthem; it's another example of the genre to which both Beowulf and the account of Jericho belong. Does "The Star-Spangled Banner" refer to at least one historical fact? Sure. Does it also contain some purely nationalistic exaggeration meant to inspire & celebrate nationalists who heard it? Yep. No doubt the "Charge of the Light Brigade" falls into this category too.
--------------------
Spiggott: Everything I've ever told you is a lie, including that.
Moon: Including what?
Spiggott: That everything I've ever told you is a lie.
Moon: That's not true!
Posts: 3925 | From: Upper right corner | Registered: Jan 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Quite clearly you don't understand the meaning of the word 'axiom'.
No, quite clearly, you don't understand the meaning of the word 'axiom'.
You're asking Gamaliel for proof of his axiom, when an axiom is simply an assumption that needs no proof. So when historians approach an ancient text, they make the assumption that some of it will be true, some of it will be almost true, some of it will be fanciful exaggeration to a particular end and some of it will be false, either by commission or omission.
You can, of course, argue that such an assumption shouldn't be made, in which case you do have the problem of dragons in Beowulf and Zeus in the Iliad. You can argue that such an assumption shouldn't be made specifically in relation to the ancient books of the Bible, while remaining for other texts.
But in both of the above cases, it's up to you to argue coherently and cogently why a different reading of either all ancient texts or the OT specifically should be made. So far, you've done neither.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Porridge
Yet assorted archaeological finds, and researches into other texts from the relevant period, confirm that at least some of the individuals mentioned in Beowulf did exist. It turns out that there was in fact a Danish King Hrothgar, for example (he’s the king to whose aid Beowulf, a Geatish hero, came in the poem); Hrothgar did live at Hereot (the Great Hall mentioned in the poem). Archaeological digs have found what is widely supposed to be Hereot. Further, there are references in the poem to events that are known to have happened, as they’re described in other texts from the times.
Hang on... how can you find confirmation from "other texts from the times" when those texts are also presumably full of fictional elements?
Gamaliel is making a sweeping statement about ALL - I repeat ALL - ancient texts, and he even goes so far as to say that it is self-evident that ancient texts contain mythic elements. So we cannot then decide that some texts are historically accurate and some are not.
The question arises: if some of the information in these texts is historically accurate, and the rest is not, how do we decide which elements are myth are which are not?
There must be some independent arbiter that enables us to disentangle the truth from the fiction. You say that we can use "other texts", but that doesn't help us, because "other texts" are part of the corpus of information, the absolute veracity of which is being questioned! If we say "archaeological evidence", then we have a highly inadequate source, as archaeology is clearly a work in progress, as is obvious from the history of archaeological discovery. Furthermore, archaeological evidence is subject to interpretation. Moreover, Gamaliel has said a number of times that he would rather talk about the textual evidence rather than the archaeological.
If we then say that "all those elements which are 'supernatural' must be mythic", then we are imposing a particular philosophy on the text, namely, philosophical naturalism, which, by the way, is a philosophy unprovable by science.
Perhaps you would like to clarify these points.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
No matter how much you rail against this, this is how it is.
There is no 'arbiter' of truths. You read, and you cross-reference, and you make propositions and put forward theses. Some things are more likely than others. If a single text refers to King Tor, but none of the contemporaneous ones do, then perhaps King Tor is a mythic character in a fable. If they all do, and there are place names like Torbridge and Torquay, perhaps King Tor did exist, even if he was unlikely to have slain the Frumious Bandersnatch.
It's a series of overlapping questions, without the prospect necessarily of ever reaching a definitive answer. You appear to be comforted by certainty, but there's nothing for you here, I'm afraid.
[ 11. March 2014, 10:51: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor
No, quite clearly, you don't understand the meaning of the word 'axiom'.
You're asking Gamaliel for proof of his axiom, when an axiom is simply an assumption that needs no proof.
An axiom is "a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true".
Now it doesn't follow that anyone can just make up a statement or proposition and say "this is an axiom", thereby absolving themselves from needing to substantiate it.
If I said: "It is an axiom that all bankers are fraudsters", do you think I would be justified in expecting everyone just to accept that without question?
Suppose someone challenged me with... "OK. So prove that that proposition is an axiom".
Do you think the following response is credible: "No, I don't need to prove that it's an axiom, because I say that it is, and axioms don't need proof." ?
If Gamaliel's proposition is truly an axiom, then it wouldn't need proof. But I am asking him to provide evidence to show that the proposition is an axiom at all!
Can't you see the difference?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
It'a an exaggeration to say that all texts contain mythic elements. When the ruler of Ugarit writes to the King of Cyprus to say his city is under attack; and archaeology demonstrates that it was burned down at roughly the same time we can safely assume that it's a reasonably accurate précis of events. But most narratives from the period aren't straightforward like that and they weren't, by and large, written by people who distinguished between myth and history in any kind of clear cut way. Then you have the problem that not everyone who wrote texts in ancient times was afflicted with rigourous honesty. There are inscriptions of the Pharaoh Hatshepsut which claim the credit for the defeat of they Hyksos some decades previously. The modern equivalent would be Mr Cameron putting up statues to himself claiming credit for the overthrow of the Third Reich. One archaeologist observes that ideally we ought to have three independent attestations for any event to claim it as an historical fact; whilst we are lucky in reality to get just one. But the idea that we can accept the Exodus and Conquest model as an historical fact based purely on the evidence of the Hexateuch is a faith based position, not one based on solid historical methodology.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
