James has responded once again to my posts with further personal attacks and misrepresentations at The Mything Links.
Evolutionary scientists are quite capable of answering creationist arguments in a way that educates the public. They know the creationist arguments well, and do not need to misrepresent them to make their case. The evidence and methods and conclusions of science are simply explained alongside the methods and interpretations of creationists.
The debates are informative, educative, rational, evidence-based and civil.
It is a pity James McGrath has seemed incapable of responding to “mythicists” (whom he compares with creationists) with the same decorum and professionalism as evolutionary scientists in their rebuttals of creationism. But then, was one being realistic in ever hoping for such a discussion with someone who was quite capable of associating “mythicism” with the argumentation of “creationism” on the basis that both contain a number of differences of opinions :-/
I have also replied to James’ post on his own blog and here.
Neil Godfrey
Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)
- Is Everything a Question of Probability? - 2024-12-15 03:04:03 GMT+0000
- The Folly of Bayesian Probability in “Doing History” - 2024-12-13 05:51:46 GMT+0000
- Jesus Mythicism and Historical Knowledge, Part 4: Did Jesus Exist? - 2024-11-27 08:20:47 GMT+0000
If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!
Even somebody like Steph (I assume it is *the* Step) wrote recently.
‘The historicity of Jesus isn’t a feature exclusively atheistic. As an agnostic, I can’t be absolutely confident in the reliability of our sources even though my thesis explores arguably plausible options. So I am agnostic about Jesus at the end of the day. There are other agnostic scholars of religion who wouldn’t touch the historical Jesus because of such uncertainty.’
I guess McGrath can’t handle uncertainty, so he wraps himself in a blanket of security by calling people who question the historical Jesus as creationists.
How can he handle uncertainty? He is a man of faith. He writes for the faithful. His little book explaining his historical method “Burial of Jesus” is addressed to the faithful Christians to reassure them that history will not put their faith at risk. He explicitly states in the book that this is one of his motives for writing it. Even in his “The Only True God” he speaks of doing “justice” to issues central to “the Christian faith”.
It sounds like Steph has moved ahead a little since the days she forayed here. That’s good.
And R. Joseph Hoffman says ‘The denial of the historicity of Jesus is like denying the historical existence of Ned Ludd.’
But almost no scholar thinks there was a Ned Ludd!