Tonight on Infidel Guy

Tune in about 5:00 PM PST tonight to hear Jerry Coyne on infidel guy radio, discussing his new book "Why Evolution is True".

A Final Word on Jesus Mythicism

Just wanted to wrap up with a few closing thoughts...

In one of his comments, James argued that the first Christians did not believe Jesus was divine. This is an issue which I must confess I know very little about. I mean, I don't know of anything in Paul's letters or in Mark (the first gospel) which treat Jesus as completely human. In fact, 1 Corinthians 15:27 says that everything is under Christ except God. So it seems that Jesus was viewed as very important and very Godly, but was also treated as distinct from God (and as a lesser being). It seems to me that Jesus would have been viewed similarly to the other sons of God being worshipped in that, who are often called "demigods". I can't be certain of that, it is just my personal opinion.

I think James was also much clearer about the criterion of embarrassment: He is arguing that, given the expectations which were present for the messiah (that he was to be an earthly ruler), it doesn't seem like anyone would make up a character who was the precise opposite of expectation. The Jews wanted an earthly king who would lead them to conquest of other nations. But Jesus is only a peasant, the son of a carpenter. Why would someone invent him? To be clear, the Jesus myth theory would entail that Jesus was originally understood as allegorical, but over time this understanding of Jesus was lost and Christians began to suppose Jesus was an earhtly, flesh and blood person. To understand how this can happen, see my second endnote**.

I think I can confidently say that if the Jesus myth theory ever degenerated into claiming that there was a conspiracy to invent an earthly person I would abandon all thought of it. It would not make any sense to believe that the earliest Christians tried to invent someone who was thought of as a regular, earthly person. The Jesus myth theory which I believe has the most credibility would be the one which states that the first gospels were symbolic tales and that Jesus was originally viewed as more of a spiritual figure. Perhaps not necessarily a God, but most certainly higher than man (see 1 Corinthians 15:27).

The writer of the gospel of Mark could have chosen to present Jesus as a literal earthly king, but outsiders would have immediately known that the story was fictional. You could not have a written a story of Jewish king leading te Jews to victory without people knowing that it was fiction. I think that initiates into early Christianity were supposed to believe that the story was true, and gradually they would be told what it really symbolized*. I think that Mark was faced with a conundrum of having to let his audience know that Jesus was king without giving the game away that this an allegorical tale. His solution was to have the charge against him written as "King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26). So this is my conjecture about how this would work under the mythicist theory. I'm not saying it is right, I am simply explaining how I think it would work under the theory.

* Here is what Sallustius wrote:

"We may well inquire, then, why the ancients forsook these doctrines and made use of myths. There is this first benefit from myths, that we have to search and do not have our minds idle.That the myths are divine can be seen from those who have used them. Myths have been used by inspired poets, by the best of philosophers, by those who established the mysteries, and by the Gods themselves in oracles. But why the myths are divine it is the duty of philosophy to inquire. Since all existing things rejoice in that which is like them and reject that which is unlike, the stories about the Gods ought to be like the Gods, so that they may both be worthy of the divine essence and make the Gods well disposed to those who speak of them: which could only be done by means of myths.

Now the myths represent the Gods themselves and the goodness of the Gods - subject always to the distinction of the speakable and the unspeakable, the revealed and the unrevealed, that which is clear and that which is hidden: since, just as the Gods have made the goods of sense common to all, but those of intellect only to the wise, so the myths state the existence of Gods to all, but who and what they are only to those who can understand.They also represent the activities of the Gods. For one may call the world a myth, in which bodies and things are visible, but souls and minds hidden. Besides, to wish to teach the whole truth about the Gods to all produces contempt in the foolish, because they cannot understand, and lack of zeal in the good, whereas to conceal the truth by myths prevents the contempt of the foolish, and compels the good to practice philosophy."


** On how a mythical Jesus evolved into a historical one.

Here is Bob Price's description of how Hercules originated as a solar deity but later evolved into a flesh and blood character. Note that I am not claiming Jesus began as a solar deity, I simply want to draw attention to the fact that symbolic myths can later be mistaken for historic truths.

"I find it more natural to suppose, with many myth scholars (among whom I do not number myself, I hasten to add) that raw myths treated stellar entities as direct characters in symbolic myths, but that in subsequent retellings and reinterpretations, the sun, moon, and stars are transformed into anthropomorphic gods and heroes. Hercules must first have been the sun, period. But then people tend to forget that and to imagine that there was a demigod hero names Hercules. One can still sniff out his solar origins from clear vestiges of it, like the lion's mane he wore (the sun's rays), the twelve labors he performed (the zodiac), and the deadly arrows he shot (sunstroke). But you do have to make the connection, because it is no longer overt. Later, a la Euhemerus, people begin thinking of these figures as real historical individuals whose memorable greatness led to their mythic exaggeration. This seems like a realistic reading of the history of mythology to me. So I doubt that any hierarchy in the Church (or Buddhism, etc.) has realized for a long time the origin of their faith and its symbols."

Debates I'm looking forward to

Dan Barker vs. Dinesh D'Souza

"Can we be good without God?" Jan 29th.


Richard Carrier vs. William Lane Craig

"Are Moral Facts Evidence of God?" March 18th


Between these two debates I expect the nail to be put in the coffin of the moral arguments for God.

Just for anyone who likes reading or listening to God Debates, I found a webpage that has an exhaustive list of debates that William Lane Craig has had and where they can be read/listened to/watched online.

Abortions

Have you seen the video where a guy asks anti-abortion demonstraters what should happen to a woman who has an illegal abortion? Most of the people he talked to could not give an answer and/or said that they had not spent much time thinking about it.

I was disappointed with all of the people interviewed. It seems to me that they are just following the cries of anti-abortion ralliers or fundamentalist preachers and are not really thinking about this and questioning it. I mean, I don't think that people who are against abortion are necessarily stupid or wicked or anything else. But I am disappointed with people who take that position without having thought it through. It just goes to show that our society needs to have greater critical thought skills.

So should abortion be legal? Yes. It will happen whether it is legal or not, and if it is illegal it will be less safe (women used to give themselves abortions with coat hangers).

Is abortion right? I don't know. I suspect that the embryo (or fetus) is not conscious, at least not to any high degree, so I don't think abortion is anything like killing a three year old child, who is fully conscious. In fact, there are probably lots of animals that have a level of consciousness equal to or greater than a fetus. So in this sense I do not feel it is wrong.

But would I ever encourage a girl to have an abortion? In most cases, No. I know at least one woman who has had an abortion and I believe she has suffered severe psychological anguish from it. Taking the life of your unborn offspring is traumatic, as anyone can imagine. I also admit that I personally would never encourage a woman to have an abortion simply because I have a lot of personal discomfort with it. It would bother me tremendously if I influenced a woman to have an abortion. I can't say why, but I just feel this way. So as far as emotional considerations go, I think abortions should be avoided at all costs.

But what about in extreme cases? Say, if the mother's life was in danger if she decided keep a baby. Or if the baby was certain to have some type of horrible birth defect or suffer mental retardation. In those cases I think it would be kinder to have an abortion. If you ever see the way a mentally retarded child goes through life, how much effort it takes to take care of them, and compare this to the amount of pleasure the child gets from life, I think you will find that it is simply a waste. And in many cases it is just plain cruel to allow such a child to live.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.

A response to James McGrath

If you don't remember, James McGrath and I had been debating the historicity of Jesus Christ.

Anyway, here is my response to one of his latest comments (his comments are in italics):

I have to be honest, I think that the parallels you point to are a slim basis for concluding that Jesus was a purely invented figure. Were the birth narratives invented? Sure. But it wasn't just mythical figures that had such stories made up about them (one thinks, for instance, of Alexander the Great).

I think I need to be a little more clear about my position on the pagan parallels: Pagan parallels don't mean that Jesus was definitely a myth, but, so long as there is no corroborating evidence for Jesus, it does place the burden of proof on the one who claims Jesus was a real person. If we have no need to posit a historical Jesus, and if he's cut from the same cloth as other mythical characters, it makes sense to presume he is just as mythical as Heracles or Dionysus unless there is a good reason to think otherwise. Still, there very well could have been a Jesus who had these stories (surviving death as an infant) grafted on to him, but, as I said before, we don't need that hypothesis. No one ever posits that Dionysus was a real person whose legend became drenched in myth over time.

Descending into Hades was presumably something most people who died were thought to have done, and so once again an examination of the details doesn't demonstrate direct borrowing. Indeed, in many instances you seem to be guilty of what Samuel Sandmel famously dubbed "parallelomania". Religions regularly come up with similar ideas, perhaps for reasons rooted in the human psyche, but often we find similarities even where direct borrowing is unlikely, if not indeed impossible.I'm just curious whether you think that the story of Moses borrowed from the story of Romulus, or vice versa, given the similarities one finds there as well.

Descending into Hades was something that most people who died were thought to have done. Exactly. This was a part of the zeitgeist of the time and culture, just as I believe that many of the other parallels were.

Now, as for the parallels: They may be due to influence/borrowing, or from some common feature of the human psyche. But I don't think this helps your case: If Jesus looks exactly like the type of Saviour God a human being would invent, that hurts your case! Let's go back to the criterion of embarrassment: You are arguing that a crucified messiah (or Savior/Son of God) would be unlikely to be invented by human beings because crucifixion was embarrassing and shameful. But the ancient Sumerians worshipped a goddess named Inanna who was said to have been stripped naked, killed, and hung from a hook for three days. Who would argue that this event was historical? It obviously wasn't (it took place in the underworld). Perhaps there is something about the human psyche which desires a humiliated god to worship. In that the case the crucifixion does not mean that Jesus must have been historical.

I believe Dr. McGrath agrees with me that Jesus was viewed in a way similar to the way in which other Savior figures were viewed. Jesus filled a void inside of his followers similar to the void filled by the followers of other savior deities. This is why we see the similarities we do between the birth narratives and such: Jesus played the same role that the other pagan gods played in the minds of their followers.

I'm going to close with some questions for Dr. McGrath: Do you agree with me that Inanna's death was humiliating, and, if so, do you think that this refutes your argument that the crucifixion was too shameful to have been an invention?


P.S. On the similarities between Romulus and Moses: I think its likely that both stories share a "common ancestor" - Both stories are influenced by a much older story (or maybe even heavily modified versions of the same story).

Why Evolution is True

The other day I wrote a post about Jerry Coyne's excellent article on theism and evolutionary theory as well the fact that he was coming out with a new book.

Today I went to the bookstore and had a look at Jerry Coyne's new book "Why Evolution is True" and I have to say that at a glance it looks superb. Coyne seems to have bent over backwards to clearly and simply explain the evidence for evolution and why the objections to it fail. For example, creationists often argue that vestigial organs have a purpose. Wings are specified for flying, but the ostrich simply uses its wings for a lesser function (balance). A vestigial organ is sort of like using an old van as a clubhouse: It works, but the van definitely was not originally built for that purpose. So why do we see such jerry rigged organs like the wing of the ostrich? Because they are descended from a species which could fly. God could have created them with something else to do the same job.

That's just one example, I recommend Coyne's book to anyone who wants a thorough understanding of the evidence for evolution.

A Brief History of Intolerance in Cosmology and Jesus Mythicism

Answers in Genesis has a new article in their "journal" all about the discrimination that enemies of the Big Bang (allegedly) face. I was actually surprised to see that they advocated exploring alternative cosmologies which would actually harm Christianity if they were true (The Steady State Theory, which calls for an eternal Universe).

Anyway, I dug up an article by Richard Carrier which gives an honest evaluation of the evidence for and against the Big Bang. Carrier even concurs with AiG that there is some discrimination going on in Cosmology.

However, in the end Carrier concludes that the Big Bang is well supported by many lines of evidence and that the "evidence against" the Big Bang is very meager and unlikely to falsify every possible way the Big Bang may have taken place.

I found it interesting to read the beginning of Carrier's article, when he talked about how Cosmologists would not explain or defend the Big Bang Theory in detail, or would tell him that the evidence was too much for him to understand.

I found an interesting symmetry here between Carrier's experience with cosmologists and my experience with Jesus historicists. The JHers offer very meager evidence for their hypothesis (which can often have a very different interpretation than the one which they give it). For example, in one of John Shelby Spong's books he offers the fact that Jesus lived in Nazareth as evidence for the historicity of Jesus. He argues that a small rural area like Nazareth isn't the kind of place you would want your messiah to be born. So this fact is not to be expected if Jesus was invented. But is to be expected if Jesus really did exist and this really was his hometown.

I find this evidence very weak. I mean, plenty of heroes in the movies are born in small towns. The fact that someone grows up in such an ordinary place helps ordinary people relate to the hero. Besides, as Bart Ehrman has noted in Peter, Paul and Mary Magdalene (Pages 225-226), the gospel writers have a tendency to want to show that God takes the weak things of this world and transforms them into something greater.

It also reminded me of some of the past exchanges I have had with Dr. James McGrath. McGrath is a smart guy, no doubt, and obviously knows magnitudes more about Christian History than I do. But I found his argument for a historical Jesus to be weak. He argues that crucifixion was not expected of the messiah and that crucifixion was so shameful that no one would have made it up.

But a study of the Bible, as well as the culture of the time, seems to me to show both of these contentions wrong. First of all, I have a book called "All the Messianic Prophecies of the Bible" and it (unwittingly) shows that almost all of the gospel stories are fashioned after Old Testament legends. Of course, the author argues that these are prophecies, but I find that suspicious in light of the fact that OT scriptures often appear to be taken out of context in the gospels ("Out of Egypt I have called my son" did not originally refer to Jesus).

At the beginning of Romans Paul says,

"Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle and set apart for the gospel of God— the gospel he promised beforehand through his prophets in the Holy Scriptures regarding his Son..."

It looks very much as if the early Christians thought that Jesus life was either revealed by or to
be interpreted through Old Testament Scriptures. When we look at Psalm 22 we can easily see why the early Christians would have invented a crucifixion (and death) for Jesus: They thought it was in the scripture.

As for the alleged embarrassment of the crucifixion, it does not mean that it must be true. The worshippers of Attis believed that he died of castration (and this allegedly caused disgust to their fellow countrymen) but no one in their right mind would argue that Attis was real. See page 13 of this document.

McGrath has argued that Jesus was not a dying and rising god, but rather, a dying and rising messiah, but that won't cut it: It is very clear that the gospel stories were influenced by stories of Roman gods, and I cite primary sources for that here.

So, I'd like to see Dr. McGrath either admit that the argument from embarassment is wrong, or explain to me why I am wrong. Will he do it? Stay tuned.