This page has been created to extend the discussion from the Ed Jones Dialogue post. See that post for the full letter written by Ed Jones to Dr Hoffmann at the occasion of moves towards the since aborted Jesus Project. Here I quote only the second last paragraph:
Might not Jesus, with his idiom the Kingdom of God, have been about Ultimate Concern – the ultimate solution to the human condition. Thus our inherent problem with Ultimate Concern (God-man relationship – mysticism) may yet be the basic cause of our difficulty with knowing who Jesus was or even if he was.
The following two references are to serve as a preface reference for further Comments.
Plato: The mysteries of the late sixth century: Marcus in Cicero with reference to the transformational power of the mysteries of Eleusts:
Jesus of Nazareth according to The Sermon on the Mount. Betz:
This is but a sample of the historical Jesus of the SM.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/11 @ 2:01 am |
Test the comment system for Ed Jones Dialogue
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/13 @ 8:05 am |
Neil,
This is to correct a stupid mistake I have made that has gotten the discussion off track. The ‘idiom”: “When you come to the fork in the road, take it”, has no appropriate philosophical meaning. I ask that you dismess it as a mistake. Some years ago I heard it in a commencement talk spoken in no context. It seemed paradoxically cute and it stuck in my head. In a comment I tried to suggest that our discussion might be helped if we take a reality check. Thoughtless, this expression popedd up in tring to say that by way of getting on the same page, some discussion of the history of the road to knowledge might be helpful. So much for that.
As a quirk of age, I am still experiencing computer problems.Over the past few days I have composed two comments as documets. In the process of pasting them to a comment box I not only failed to post them but lost both. This in spite of help from the purcher of the computer. I hope to overcome my problems within the next day or so and continue comments. I ask for patience.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/13 @ 11:44 am |
No worries, Ed. It may be easier to email me documents and I can put them up on the blog here if that makes it easier.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/01/13 @ 12:22 pm |
I need to explain the mistake of the so-called idiom: ‘when you get to the fork in the road take it’. The fork implies when you get to the end of the road of knowledge of the physical universe, the state to which science fully admits, take the other route to knowledge, mysticism. This route is not analogous to a road like the progressive increase in knowledge of the universe. The route of mysticism is an experience: “Reality is apprehended directly and immediately, meaning without any mediation, any symbolic elaborations, or any abstractions, subject and object become one in a timeless and spaceless act that is beyond any and all formed mediation – contacting reality in its “suchness”, its “isness”, “thatness”, beyond words, names, thoughts, images.” Ken Wilber
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/10 @ 2:48 am |
I disagree. My own view — and that of many scientists I am sure — is that when you get to the limits of what your scientific knowledge can explain you keep on searching. You don’t shut down the inquiry and declare an end to the enterprise by abandoning science. Scientists have not given up on trying to explain the origins of the universe. When their theories are struggling or proven inadequate they embark on searches for new ones.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/10 @ 6:14 am |
Assuming that you were misled by the title in my first reference to The Mind of God by Paul Davies, Professor of Mathematical Physics at the University of Adelaide in Australia, I return to it for I feel that much of what he has to say may help us get on with the discussion. He was awarded the Templeton Prize for the book.
“In later years I began doing research on the origin of the universe, the nature of time, and the unification of the laws of physics, and I found myself trespressing on territory that for centuries had been the near-exclusive province of religion. Yet here was science either providing answers to what had been left to dark mysteries, or else discovering that the very concepts from which these mysteries draw their power were actually meaningless or even wrong. My first book God and the New Physics was a first effort to grapple with this clash of ideologies, he Mind of God is a more considered attempt. – - My inclinatiom is to assume that the laws of nature are obeyed at all times. But even if you rule out supernatural events, is it not clear that science could in principle explain everything in the physical universe. There remains the old problem about the end of the physical universe.” More later.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/16 @ 7:31 am |
That’s fine, but I don’t think all scientists who have considered the same questions would agree with Paul Davies. He is expressing an opinion.
But to look even at that opinion, I have no difficulty with his statement that it is “not clear that science could in principle explain everything in the physical universe”. It does not follow from that that we need or ever will need a God or something beyond the natural to explain the physical universe. I suppose in principle there are things about the universe that might remain beyond our comprehension simply because of the limited capacities of our brains. The scientific method has served us very well till now, but it does not follow that there might eventuate a more comprehensive method in the future, or that the necessary method will always remain beyond our human capacities.
So even IF science as we know it today will not yield full understanding of everything it does not follow that there is any need for a God.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/01/16 @ 8:18 am |
In spite of all, my response requires that I cite a bit more of Davies.
“Can we make sense of the universe” (‘even if science, as we know it today, will not yield full understanding of everything’ – Neil)? “Is there a road to knowledge – even ‘ultimate knowledge’ – that lies outside the road of rational scientific inquiry and logical reasoning? Many people claim there is. It is called mysticism.
Most scientists (and Christian theologians -Ed) have a deep mistrust of mysticism. This is not surprising as mystical thought lies at the opposite extreme to rational thought, which is the basis of the scientific method. Also, mysticism tends to be confused with the occult, the paranormal, and other fringe beliefs. In fact, many of the world’s finest thinkers, including some notable scientists such as Einstein, Pauli, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Eddington, and Jeans, have also espoused mysticism. Mysticism is not a substitute for scientific inquiry and logical reasoning so long as this approach can be consistently applied. It is only in dealing with ultimate questions that science and logic may fail us. I am not saying that science and logic are likely to provide the wrong answers, but they may be incapable of addressing the sort of ‘why’ (as opposed to “how”) questions we want to ask.
But in the end a rational explanation for the world in the sense of a closed and complete system of logical truths is almost impossible. We are barred from ultimate knowledge, from ultimate explanation, by the very rules of reasoning that prompts us to ask in the first place. If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of “understanding” from that of rational explanation. Possibly the mystical path is a way to such understanding. Maybe they (mystical experiences) provide the only possible route to the Ultimate.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/20 @ 12:45 pm |
Hi Ed,
What I find “mystifying” — call me perverse if you will — is the idea that we need to “make sense” of the universe or ask “ultimate questions”.
The universe just is. I don’t know what there is to make “sense of”. A rock is a rock. It doesn’t have a meaning. I don’t ask “why the rock?” except in the sense of wanting to know the physical forces that produced it. If I don’t know these then it doesn’t worry me. I never feel a need to ask for its meaning or what “sense” it makes by its existence. And the universe is just a big mass of matter just as that rock is a small mass of the stuff. “Why” questions applied to rocks and galaxies and things are meaningless to me.
Some people respond to this view with horror and wrongly think I must be bereft of any sense of awe, wonder, poetry, beauty, meaningful life, etc. Maybe those people find those experiences in religion or mysticism. I find them in life and the universe unmediated by either of those.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/01/20 @ 1:16 pm |
In spite of all, I add one more statement from Davies:
To supplement my last comment, I quote from “Quantum Questions – Mystical Writings of the World’s Greatest Physicists”, Edited by Ken Wilber.
This volume is a condensed collection of virtually every major statement made on these topics by the founders and grand theorists of modern (quantum and relativity) physics: Einstein, Schrodinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, Eddington, Pauli, de Brogue, Jeans, and Plank. – - I was quite surprised to find a very general commonality emerge in the worldviews of these philosopher-scientists. – - these theorists are virtually unanimous in declaring that modern physics offers no positive support whatsoever for mysticism or transcendentalism of any sort or variety, (And yet they were all mystics of one sort or another! The reason for that will be one of the central questions of this section.)
There is, once again, a general conclusion reached by the majority of the theorists in this volume, and best elucidated by Schroedinger and Eddington. Eddington begins with the acknowledged fact that physics is dealing with shadows, not reality. Now the great difference, he says, between the old and the new physics is not that the latter is relativistic, nondeterministic, four dimensional, or any of those sorts of things. The great difference between old and new physics is both much simpler and much more profound: both the old and the new physics were dealing with shadows-symbols, but the new physics was forced to be aware of that fact – forced to be aware that it was dealing with shadows and illusions, not reality.”
More later.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/21 @ 12:33 pm |
Hi Ed
I have no problem accepting the claims of others that they have mystical experiences. If I ever have had similar experiences in the past I might explain them differently now. A book promoting the value of mysticism is naturally going to include sayings from recognized names that support its views. If anyone felt so inclined I am sure they could produce a similar volume of equally reputable names (scientists, too) who deny anything but the material or the natural and who are decidedly not mystics of any sort. Paul Davies can publish his views and appeal to those of a similar persuasion, but others are free to think and conclude differently.
In your concluding paragraph you refer to “the acknowledged fact that physics is dealing with shadows, not reality”. That can be interpreted in different ways but it is surely mere opinion to declare that it is a “fact” that there is a supernatural reality or that the observable world is cannot be explained in terms of anything “natural”.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/01/21 @ 1:48 pm |
Neil,
The last paragraph of your above comment begins: “In your concluding paragraph you refer – “. I can only take this as espressing your understandding that the extract which I have set off iin quotation marks is in something I am saying. Please read it again as an extract from “Quantum Questions – Mystical Writings of the World’s Greatest Physicists” Edited by Ken Wilber.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/22 @ 10:38 am |
I knew you were providing an extract from the book. I didn’t mean to imply they were your own words.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/01/22 @ 12:16 pm |
Neil,
In recognition of our great difference in thought, perhaps it might be helpful before moving to modern scientific understanding of existence, that we each do a bit of research on the thought of Plato v/s Demeritus, in a sense the fathers of our respective positions.
My position being more representative of Plato while yours being more of Demeritus. Lets take a short time out for this. OK?
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/23 @ 3:09 am |
I think you mean Democritus. But why? I did not come to my world view by sitting down and studying Plato, Aristotle and the rest. I think as I do as a result of reflection on my own past experiences and ongoing observations. Naturally I have been informed of ideas in the wider world around me but I have always evaluated them through my experiences and personal reflections and taken on board what fits for me. (Thus some time after I had come to my current outlook on life I picked up a particular work by Nietzsche I had not read before and was struck at how precisely he had expressed some of the very ideas I had come to through my own reflections on my own experiences and observations. But I cannot say that I embrace or am a follower of Nietzsche’s ideas.)
I would never try to persuade you to embrace my outlook. I think we are all the products of our own make-up and experiences. We are all at where we are at and that’s that, I like to say. I cannot judge anyone for irrational ideas because I know I have had some pretty irrational ideas myself and know no-one could ever have then talked me out of them. I was at least sincere like most of us.
It seems you are wanting us to reach some common point of understanding by examining authorities for our beliefs or assumptions, if I am not mistaken. This started with my scepticism towards Betz’s claims about Jesus or the Sermon on the Mount. We are not going to reach a common starting point. We can only argue about the historicity of Jesus or the SM with our rational equipment. If we cannot agree then we must agree to disagree.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/01/23 @ 5:41 am |
Yes it is Democritus.
Just for the record, I site this about Plato, named the most important philosopher of all time. “Plato announced that the whole of physics was, to use his words, nothing more than a “likely story,” since it depended on nothing but the evidence of the fleeting and shadowy senses, whereas truth resided in the transcendental Forms beyond physics (hence “metaphysics”}. Democritus, on the other hand put his faith in “atoms and the void,” since nothing else, he felt, had any existence – - a notion so obnoxious to Plato that he expressed the strongest desire that all the works of Democritus be burned on the spot.”
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/23 @ 10:23 am |
The symbolic nature of physics, Eddington explains, “Is generally recognized, and the scheme of physics is now formulated in such a way as to make it almost self-evident that it is a partial aspect of something wider.” However, according to these physicists, about this “something wider” physics tells us – and can tell us – nothing whatsoever. It was exactly this radical failure of physics, and not its supposed similarities to mysticism, that paradoxically led so many physicists to a mystical view of the world. As Eddington carefully explains: “Briefly the position is this. We have learnt that the exploration of the external world by the methods of physical science leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating. Feeling that there must be more behind, we return to our starting point in human consciousness – the one centre where more might become known. There [in immediate inward consciousness] we find other stirrings, other revelations than those conditioned by the world of symbols. . . . Physics most strongly insists that its methods do not penetrate behind the symbolism. Surely then that mental and spiritual nature of ourselves, known in our minds by an intimate contact transcending the methods of physics, supplies just that . . . which science is admittedly unable to give.”
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/24 @ 6:14 am |
All this is saying is that our current scientific methods are of limited use for understanding all we know that there is to understand about the world. This is all part of progress. Once earthquakes and lightning were beyond the ability of people to understand in natural terms so the gods filled the gap.
Understanding the way our brain works, the nature of consciousness — all of this is in its infancy. Why assume there is something “supernatural” behind everything?
The words of Eddington clearly appeal to you and many people, but they do nothing for others.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/01/24 @ 8:26 am |
No this is not “All this is saying – - “, what you have said really, for me, is saying for, far beyond any rationaal thought. Just to make certain we are reacting to the same words I repeat: Plato some 2,400 years ago said: The whole of physics was nothing more than a likely story since it depends on fleeting and shaadow senses, whereas truth resides in the transdcental Forms beyond physics (hence “metaphysics”).
From Plato’s pre-science antiquity to 20th century Quantum Physics: Exploration of the external world by the methods of physics leads not to a concrete reality, but to a shadow world of symbols. Physics most strongly insists that its methods do not penetrate behind the symbolism. Surely then that mental and spiritual nature of ourselves, known in our spiriituaal nature of ourselves, known in our minds by an intimate contact, transcending the methods of physics, supplies that which science is admittedly unable to give.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/29 @ 12:18 pm |
Ed, you have not yet explained how or why I should think that something that is not explicable through scientific methods or current naturalistic paradigms must be “spiritual” (whatever that means) or “supernatural” (whatever that refers to). Simply quoting great scientists and others who make this assumption does nothing for me.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/01/29 @ 9:13 pm |
Neil,
For starters read a scientific explaanation of “how or why”.
Click on , then click on
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/30 @ 7:28 am |
Its found at – templestream on Xamga – then – Vilenkin’s Math Supports Creation Model of Universe.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/30 @ 7:38 am |
Correction: Xamga should read: Xanga.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/01/30 @ 7:51 am |
Neil, You seem to be busy elsewhere, for your convenience I post a brief summary of the announcement I referred to at templestream on Xanga. Cosmologist Alexander Vilankin has introduced mathematical formula that basically imply the Universe was created ex-nhilo – a singular beginning – The Genesis Problem. The occasion for this significant announcement was Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday Celebration which was entitled “State of the Universe” which featured a prerecorded message from Stephen Hawking who was too ill to attend: “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God”. What really broke down was Hawking’s Grand Design, claiming that with gravity there was no need for a Creator.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/03 @ 2:31 am |
Partly — I’ve been overseas on holiday — but also I don’t see the point of just asking each other to read this or that. That’s not a dialogue. I can simply reply to your request that I read your site about Vilenkin’s mathematics that you read a response at http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8016
There is nothing about V’s mathematics that obliges one to conclude a divine creator. Vilenkin himself says as much. I don’t understand the science or maths but I have read that the laws of the universe change and we are faced with all sorts of paradoxes. Bringing a god into the picture only cheats our intellectual curiosity and robs us of the mysteries that are yet to be explored.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/03 @ 7:30 am |
New Scientist – Why physicists can’t avoid a creation event.
Editorial: The Genesis problem.
“You could call them the worst birthday present ever. At the meeting of minds convened last week to honor Stephen Hawking’s 70th birthday, kindly called “State of the Universe” two boki proposals posed serious threats to our existing understanding of the cosmos.”
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/04 @ 3:56 am |
“Hawking’s statement on Jan. 8 implies that the ultimate beginning of the universe was a cosmic singularity. His comment also reveals his commitment to methodological naturalism over math, If the math shows there must have been a creation event, it must mean that science broke down and is neither reliable nor practical. In reality Hawking’s Grand Design broke down under the burden of a simple scientific discovery. A truly objective scientist follows the math wherever it may lead, without respect to ideological philosophical commitments. Often a major paradigm shift is required, a Copernican revolution of sorts, when a radical new significant scientific discovery is confirmed.”
John Lennox of Oxford University has outlined the obvious: “- – physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions”.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/05 @ 4:09 am |
Unlike Hawking, Vilerkin was able to swallow some humble pie and admit that his previous estimations regarding the universe were wrong. Vilerkin’s numerous papers supporting the possibilities of Multiverse and parallel universes, but his new equations refute these theories.’ The website Creation Evolution Headlines has outlined the refutations Vilerkin has recently offered.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/05 @ 4:23 am |
“A major paradigm shift – a Copernican revolution of sorts – a radical new scientific Discovery which posed serious threats to existing understanding of the universe”. Such announcement took place at a conference held at Cambridge University to honor Stephen Hawking on his 70th birthday, entitled “State of the Universe”, a Meeting of some of the most notable minds of the scientific community. A New Science editorial: Why physicist can’t avoid a creation event, made the comment: “You could call it the worse birthday present ever” (forcing so much mind changing).
A prerecorded message from Stephen Hawking who was ill unable to attend: “A point of creation would be a place where science broke down. One would have to appeal to religion and the hand of God.” What really broke down was Hawking’s Grand Design, his M-heory caiming that with gravith there was no need for a Creator.
Then Cosmologist Vilarkin introduced mathematical formula that basically imply the universe was created ex-nhilo, a singular beginning. Unlike Hawking, Vilarkin was able to swallow some humble pie and admit that his previous solutions regarding the universe were wrong. His numerous papers supporting the possibility of Multiverse and ;arallel universes, but new equations refute these theories.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/07 @ 11:14 am |
The Stephen Hawking birthday Cambridge meeting was held on January 8.
John Lennox of Oxford University outlined the obvious: “Physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions.”
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/07 @ 11:48 am |
You can read a response to Vilenkin’s maths at http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8016
If current science and understanding cannot explain the universe then we have a choice: We can stop any more investigation and say God did it or we can continue to search and find new tools and find discover new mysteries about the workings of nature.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/07 @ 12:45 pm |
Neil,
Just one question: Do you accept the 1/8/12 Hawkng birthday Cambridge meeting as representative of present normative scientific understanding of the “State of the Universe”?
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/08 @ 2:41 am |
I guess so, Ed. But nothing you have said or quoted has given us any reason to assume a God or supernatural agent is at work anywhere. I have posted links of responses to V’s claims, including V’s own statements about the idea of a supernatural involvement. But even if someone did somehow “prove” a God by some very abstruse science and mathematics it would do absolutely nothing for me because I know I wouldn’t understand it. Moreover, I know any such “proof” will always be open to challenge by others who do understand the science and maths.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/09 @ 8:03 pm |
Every discipline has its own areas of special knowledge. As you have said Neil in the discipline of science, you do not understand the math or the language. I fully admit that I share this, making both of us outsiders. The discipline of New Testament Studies has its own areas of special knowledge as listed by Betz: the areas of philology, form and redaction criticism, literary criticism, history of religions, and New Testament theology. I expect you will agree we both do not have sufficient understanding of these areas of special knowledge to qualify in any sense as insiders. Thus our respective opinions of either discipline, by rational judgment, may well be in suspect. I happen to accept, what I am able to judge with my limited powers of rational judgment, that which seems to be the most authoritative opinions of both disciplines. I realize that your opinions seem to question even the legitimacy of NT Studies as a discipline. At least I try to stay on the side of history over against the mythical. Just an aside.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/11 @ 1:19 pm |
I do not understand advanced mathematics but I can generally understand the difference between a valid and an invalid argument in history. That is a publicly accessible discipline on the whole. I do not understand Greek or Aramaic at an advanced level, but the arguments relating to the historicity of Jesus do not depend on such knowledge. I can recognize that when a scholar like Maurice Casey appears to argue that knowing Aramaid IS important for establishing the historicity of Jesus I can at least follow the logic of his arguments — and his explanations in his most recent book on Jesus where he explains specifically how a knowledge of Aramaic helps us ascertain the historicity of an event. And I do not need to know the ins and outs of Aramaic to see the logical fallacies and unsupported assumptions in his arguments.
When it comes to history we are in the field of a public discourse. I do not need to rely on scholarly opinion in this area. I can read it for myself and understand the logic or otherwise of the arguments.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/11 @ 1:29 pm |
A reason for the need of religion, from the world’s greatest thinkers.
Neil, once again your reply forces the inexpressible state: where I see white you see black. I turn completely away from Christianity to the scientific guild for what I take to be a statement of the ultimate standard for judging the legitimacy of rational thought. The thought of the world’s greatest physics, thus the greatest rational thinkers, “the founders and grand theorists of modern (quantum and relativity) physics: Einstein. Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, Eddington, Pauli, de Biogue, Jeans and Plank, virtually the entire pantheon of perennial philosophers, and they all reached the conclusion that a key tenet of perennial philosophy is that in mystical consciousness subject and object become one in the act of knowing; they were also aware that certain philosophers claimed that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Bohr’s Complementarity Principle supported this mystical idea, because, it was said, in order for the subject to know the object, it had to “interfere” with it, and that proved that the subject-object duality had been transcended by modern physics. None of these physicists believed this assertion. Bohr himself stated quite plainly that “the entire notion of complementarity does in no way involve a departure from our position as detached observers of nature.” Accordingly, for these reasons these theorists rejected the “physics supports mysticism” view. Their critique, which is not altered by any particular advance in physics, is a logical critique that cuts at right angles to any possible new discovery – it Is simple, straightforward and profound; at one stroke, it cuts across virtually everything written on the supposed parallel between physics and mysticism. Briefly the critique is this: In the mystical consciousness, Reality is apprehended directly and immediately, meaning without any mediation, any symbolic elaboration, any conceptualization, or any abstractions; subject and object become one in a timeless act that is beyond any and all forms of mediation.” (Ken Wilber).
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/04/02 @ 11:43 pm |
So you’ve said several times now, Ed. My replies only leave you repeating your position. I think we simply have to agree to disagree. Yes?
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/04/03 @ 6:48 am |
Neil,
Your lack of knowledge of the discipline of science is showing. Nothing was said to suggest “- – shut down the enquiry and declare an end to the enterprise by abandoning science”. What was meant: When you get to the prevailing conclusion that the new physics cannot deal with reality, can never explain the existence of the universe – -. “The great difference between the old and the new physics is that both the old and the new physics were dealing with shadows and symbols, but the new physics was forced to be aware of that fact – forced to be aware that it was dealing with shadows and illusions, not reality. Schroedinger drives the point home: “Please note that the very recent advance [of physical quantum science and relativistic physics] does not lie in the world of physics itself having acquired this shadowy character; it had ever since Democritus of Abdera and even before, but we were not aware of it, we thought we were dealing with the world itself”. And Sir James Jeans summarizes it perfectly, right down to the metaphor: “The essential fact is simply that all the pictures which science now draws of nature, and which alone seem capable of according with observational fact, seems not to get in contact with ultimate reality” – we are still within the cave with our backs to the light, and only watch the shadows on the wall – the very same conclusion as Plato’s with his Cave allegory 2, 440 years ago.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/12 @ 6:48 am |
This is what you have been saying or quoting from the beginning and now we seem to have come full circle. I don’t understand what any of these quotes about science has to do with whether or not there was a historical Jesus behind the Gospels — nor even what they have to do with the question of the existence of gods.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/12 @ 7:34 am |
Neil, clearly, although with evident reluctance, you replied, “I guess so – -“, to my question if you accepted the Jan. 8 Hawking birthday meeting as being representative of the scientific community. The confirmed fact announced being: the universe had a singular beginning. This was based on observed irrefutable evidence, not a conclusion suggested by mathematical formula, although Vilenkin after refuting his 2010 math suggesting Muliverse and parallel universes, introduced new math formula that indicated a singular beginning. Insiders see this as the closest scientific evidence of a Creator, forcing general radical rethinking of the “State of the Universe”. Clearly for Hawking “science has broken down. We now must turn to religion, the hand of God”, reluctantly refuting his Grand Design M-theory – we have gravity we do not need a Creator. My point is that as an outsider, to hold convictions contrary to those held by the scientific community puts one in the position being in serious suspect.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/14 @ 1:37 am |
http://articles.philly.com/2012-01-23/news/30655896_1_cosmologist-universe-creationists
If you search for Hawking’s supposed quote, you find page after page of Creationist claptrap. I smell something fishy.
http://articles.philly.com/2012-01-23/news/30655896_1_cosmologist-universe-creationists
FTA:
Hawking is inaccessible – his neurological condition, ALS, makes all but the slowest communication impossible – but I was able to reach the two scientists accused of coming to the conference bearing “the worst presents ever.”
One of them, MIT cosmologist Alan Guth, said he did not get the impression that Hawking or anyone else was giving up on a scientific explanation for the origin of the universe. Guth certainly is not, and he thought Hawking’s God quote was probably referring not to the state of cosmology but to some specific ideas.
Comment by Tim Widowfield — 2012/02/14 @ 3:01 am |
Ed, you have made this point more than once yet you have not addressed the responses to it where I showed V does not claim his maths proves God; furthermore, any reading of Hawking’s references to God in his major works makes it clear, at least to me, that he used the word metaphorically, to refer to the laws of the universe and answers to why the universe is the way it is. Even Hawking’s former wife mistook his own statements for flirting with religious belief when they were clearly a literary allusion: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/jane-hawking-my-life-with-stephen/2980194
You have misunderstood the context and nature of the quotations you are using. I suggest you get the full transcripts and study them more carefully in their full context.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/14 @ 6:57 am |
I made no claim that V’s math proved that there must be a Creator. I take Hawking’s statement to be an expression of his thought without metaphorical connotations. I do take it to be a conclusion of the Hawking meeting that the universe has a singular beginning. I further believe that while physics can never provide a complete explanation of the universe, it is fatally flawed when it espouses theories which seem to exclude the possibility of a Creator.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/15 @ 6:03 am |
Ed: “. . . it is fatally flawed when it espouses theories which seem to exclude the possibility of a Creator.”
I have to presume that when you capitalize “Creator” you’re referring to some unique, supernatural personality that magically transcends time and space, that precedes all physical laws, that stands outside the universe. I only mention this because if we’re going to speculate with no foundation, we may as well throw in the possibility of many creators (why just one?) and of creators that are non-sentient — say, forces without personality or self-awareness, but supernatural nonetheless. Why not a supernatural creator that died the moment the universe was born? Maybe our universe was formed from the corpse left over from a pre-Big Bang Cosmic Tiamat.
But enough pointless speculation. “Fatally flawed,” you say? I think you took a wrong turn when you forgot that science doesn’t declare that there is no supernatural, magical force behind everything. It rather proceeds from the fact that we have no way of measuring or observing it, so we have nothing objective to say about on the matter. This methodological agnosticism about gods, sprites, elves, angels, fairies, hobgoblins, etc. has served us quite well so far.
Calling physics “fundamentally flawed” because it excludes a Creator is simply wrongheaded. Physics doesn’t deny or exclude God; it simply has nothing to say about him, her, it, or them. We can only measure physical reality. (Whether there is anything beyond our physical reality is a philosophical or religious question.) If we tried to add God to any cosmological theory, we would be on shaky ground indeed. We could merely offer conjecture, hope, faith, wishful thinking — but science requires mathematical rigor, observable and measurable phenomena, a working rational model, etc. You know, real stuff.
The natural sciences don’t have the tools to study or describe supernatural phenomena. Pretending that they do would be fundamentally and fatally flawed.
Comment by Tim Widowfield — 2012/02/15 @ 2:21 pm |
What I was saying is: theories of any sort of eternal existence, eliminating the need for a Creator, are fatally flawed by the rule of Ultimate Truth. A singular beginning moves the issue to the status of opinion, in recognition of the fact that science can never prove that there is a Creator.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/29 @ 8:13 am |
Yes, I capitalize Creator because I am referencing Ultimate Reality, Einstein’s super intelligence far beyond any man conceived intelligence, (a no –thing, nothing}, known only by human experience, a well attested fact of history. You have seriously misread my comment is several ways. I made no claim that V’s math proved there is a Creator. I was expressing my conviction that physics can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. “Fatally flawed” is based on the truth of Ultimate Reality that any scientific claim or speculation which seems to suggest there is no need for a Creator is basically flawed. The Hawking birthday conference is an immediate example of verification. Vilenkin’s earlier math formula speculating eternal multi and or parallel universes effectively eliminates any notion of a beginning, thus no Creator. Likewise Hawking’s former Grand Design M-theory: with gravity we do not need a Creator. The substance of the Conference concluded the universe had a singular beginning, with both repudiating their former speculations. I note that this confirms the first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (meaning all that is or ever will be}. Thanks anyway for a thoughtful response.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/16 @ 8:28 am |
Ed Jones: “. . . Einstein’s super intelligence . . . [is] a well attested fact of history.”
Tim: As they say on Wikipedia, [citation needed]
Ed Jones: “I was expressing my conviction that physics can never provide a complete explanation of the universe.”
Tim: This is not news. Science builds models that approximate reality. Some people who study the philosophy of science prefer to use the term “actuality” rather than reality. As an example, the Bohr model of the atom is not reality. It’s a description that is useful up to a point. It is an “actuality” that has been superseded by new models of atomic, as well as subatomic, structures. The Copernican model of the universe replaced the Ptolemaic model. The description is not the thing itself.
We are limited by our instruments, our perception, our minds, etc. Hence, everything we think we know is merely an approximation of reality. Everything. However, for pragmatists like myself, it’s all right. It works out pretty well in the long run.
Ed: “. . . any scientific claim or speculation which seems to suggest there is no need for a Creator is basically flawed.”
Tim: Let me try again. Science is a naturalistic endeavor. That is, it can only try to understand the material world, because its tools are based in the material world. If you ask me what happened before the Big Bang, I’ll tell you I do not know. If you ask me what lies beyond what I cannot see, I’ll say the same thing. If you believe on faith that “beyond this point there be dragons,” it is your prerogative. But I still can’t understand why admitting the obvious is “basically flawed.”
Ed: “I note that this confirms the first sentence of the Bible: “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (meaning all that is or ever will be}.”
Tim: Actually, the first sentence is better translated as starting: “While God was creating the heavens and the earth . . .” It is more than likely that the ancient Hebrews did not envision God creating the universe ex nihilo. They rather saw the creation event as God imposing divine order upon the primordial chaos. He separates light from darkness. He divides the waters from the dry land. He introduces the cycles of the day, the seasons, the year.
It’s the same with the creation of Adam. God doesn’t will the first human into existence from nothing. No, he molds him from the mud and breathes life into him.
Ed: “Thanks anyway for a thoughtful response.”
Tim: You’re welcome, sir.
Comment by Tim Widowfield — 2012/02/16 @ 3:36 pm |
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is mannifest in the laws of the Universe – a spirit vastly superior to that of man.” (quoted in The Quotable Einstein, p.152.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/23 @ 12:08 pm |
Einstein: “God does not play dice.”
God: “C’mon seven! Baby needs a new pair of shoes!”
Comment by Tim Widowfield — 2012/03/23 @ 3:39 pm |
About one who makes fool comments about Einstein, don’t we know who the real fool is?
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/23 @ 11:49 pm |
Gosh, Ed. I thought we were friends.
Anyhow, my point is that Einstein was a smart guy, but he wasn’t right about everything. He was greatly disturbed by the implications of quantum theory, hence his quote about God not throwing dice.
But research continues to confirm that on the subatomic level, the world is very strange indeed. It was either Eddington or Haldane who said that the universe is not only stranger than we imagine; it is stranger than we can imagine. God apparently throws dice, plays roulette, and buys lottery tickets.
Comment by Tim Widowfield — 2012/03/24 @ 12:52 am |
Tim, sorry my comment was personal. Here at Vridar and aged I am quite defensive. My statement about you abtaining a copy of Betz’s Essays on the SM stands. Here you are special, yes with all differences my friend.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/24 @ 1:31 am |
Ed, you speak of your convictions. This is where scientific inquiry differs from the religious quest. Science is about approaching the evidence with the humility of tentativeness, always willing — especially in the realm of cosmology — to change one’s mind as new evidence and test results surface. Religion shows no such humility but “Knows The Truth” with Taliban-sure dogmatism.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/16 @ 9:40 pm |
In a nutshell you seem to have raised the basic questions of our dialogue. My main concern is the problem of treating them in some adequate way without an excess of wordy comments and replies. I will avoid ‘religious’ argument and try to say only that which might be recognized as coming from the scientific community. irst, something on of the history of physics, from Plato, some 2400 years ago, to the present. “Plato announced that the whole of physics was, nothing more than a ‘likely story’, since it depended ultimately on nothing but the evidence of the fleeting and shadowy senses, whereas truth resided in the transcendental Forms beyond physics (hence metaphysics). Democritus, on the other hand, put his faith in ‘atoms and the void’, since nothing else, he felt, had any existence – a notion so obnoxious to Plato that he expressed the strongest desire that all the works of Democritus be burned on the spot.” (Ken Wilber). Now to the present, related statements by the world’s greatest physicists, the founders and grand theorists of modern (quantum and relativity) physics: “The great difference between old and new physics is both the old and the new were dealing with shadow – symbols, but the new physics was forced to be aware that it was dealing with that fact – forced to be aware that it was dealing with shadows and allusions, not with reality. With physics we are still imprisoned in our cave, not in contact with ultimate reality, with our backs to the light, and can only watch the shadows on the wall. To go beyond shadows, is to go beyond physics, to go beyond physics is to head toward the meta-physical or mystical – and that is why so many of our pioneering physicists were mystics. The new physics contributed nothing positive to the mystical venture, except a spectacular failure, from whose smoking ruins the spirit of mysticism gently arose.”
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/17 @ 7:04 am |
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of science and what it is dealing with. As Tim said above,
Models, mathematics, descriptions, measurements are not the “reality” we are seeking to understand but symbolic representations of that reality. I think you will find that that is what is meant by modern claims that science does not deal with ‘reality’ but ‘shadows’ or such statements.
There is no relation to what Plato meant at all. If similar words are used (shadows vs reality) they mean quite different things for scientists today than they did for Plato. Plato believed that “ultimate reality” was some intangible Idea behind everything that existed. Behind a geometric circle was an ultimate “Idea” of a circle. That’s nothing like what scientists or anyone today discussing the question means by “ultimate reality”.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/17 @ 1:12 pm |
Neil: There is no relation to what Plato meant at all. If similar words are used (shadows vs reality) they mean quite different things for scientists today than they did for Plato. Plato believed that “ultimate reality” was some intangible Idea behind everything that existed. Behind a geometric circle was an ultimate “Idea” of a circle. That’s nothing like what scientists or anyone today discussing the question means by “ultimate reality”.
Yes, that would be in accordance with a naturalistic scientific philosophy, as Tim says, “a naturalistic endeavor”.
As an aside, –
when considering mathematics as you illustrate (and considering mathematical models of nature underpinning science), I find it interesting to discover mathematicians’ views.
They vary. In fact, they are “Still Debating with Plato”:
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/31392/title/Math_Trek__Still_debating_with_Plato
E. B. Davies, mentioned in the article, says, “Let Platonism Die” –
http://www.madepublic.com/getdata2.php?id=25357 Or try this link: http://tinyurl.com/74n57lp
Ulf Persson ( http://www.math.chalmers.se/~ulfp/ ), also quoted in the article, argues, “Let Platonism Live!” –
http://www.math.chalmers.se/~ulfp/Platonism/platonism.pdf
Bruce MacLennon ( http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/Vita.html ), who has interest in nanotechnology, even discusses “Neoplatonism in Science, Past and Future” –
http://web.eecs.utk.edu/~mclennan/papers/MacLennan-NIS.pdf
Comment by pearl — 2012/02/17 @ 3:19 pm |
Sorry if the E. B. Davies article link doesn’t work here. It did work for me, though, when I copied and then pasted the link into a new window.
Comment by pearl — 2012/02/17 @ 3:24 pm |
I am deeply greatful for your references, partcularly Bruce MacLennan’s esssay. It has served as a special and timely reference here in the centre of secular criticts. You might just find my reconstruction of Jesus traditions to be of interest, see Ed Jones Dialogue.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/01 @ 7:02 am |
Hello, Ed. My comments here, of course, were tangential to your reconstruction of Jesus traditions. I’m not comfortable assuming a historical Jesus and I have nothing more to contribute at this time, but I’d be happy to read again your ideas after I take care of some family matters.
I tend to find methodological naturalism relevant as an approach because it is practical and concerned with methods of learning about nature, while not addressing “ultimate reality”. It could very well be compatible with some metaphysical and mystical approaches as well as naturalistic and materialistic ones when considering unknown “ultimate reality”. My references seemed to suggest possibilities of different ontological foundations. Glad you enjoyed reading the articles.
This very recent video, “The History of the Universe: From Beginning to End” from John C. Mather might be of interest to some readers.
Comment by pearl — 2012/03/02 @ 9:02 am |
First off I repeat my understanding of origins. Origins of post crucifixion Jesus traditions: two completely different traditions, recorded in different sources having two completely different contexts, before Christianity, before the Gospels, before Paul. The first, the Jerusalem Jesus Movement beginning with the key disciples Peter, James and John, soon led by James Jesus’ brother. The Jesus Movement was soon followed by a group of Jerusalem Hellenist Jews who took up the notion that the significance of Jesus was: his death as a sacrifice for mankind’s sins, over against the Jesus Movement with their mission to again take up Jesus’ message. The relation between the movements was adversarial in the extreme. I tire of repeating my reconstruction as contained in Ed Jones Dialogue. Read it again as if for the first time and begin the arguments.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/02/26 @ 7:44 am |
I understand this model of Christian origins. It is not unique to Betz. But it is a model that begins with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus who taught the things that were later epitomized by his followers in the Sermon on the Mount and in opposition to the Hellenist movement that stressed the crucified Christ over the teaching one.
My criticism of the model is that it is built on an assumption that there was a historical Jesus who taught such sorts of things and was crucified, while a closer look at the Gospel of Matthew as a whole suggests a much simpler explanation.
The author of this Gospel was imaginatively creating a story built on a Jesus (Joshua) he was modeling out of the older stories of Moses and miscellaneous verses of the Jewish scriptures. He was living some time in the mid second century and creating a character supposedly revealed in various passages in the Old Testament and who was spiritually greater than Moses. The Sermon on the Mount was created as a foil to the Law given by Moses from Mount Sinai.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/02/26 @ 8:40 am |
Gouchound’s is but one more version of a reading of the writings of the NT (the letters of Paul, the Gospels, as well as the later writings of the NT), from the false assumption that they are our sole NT source of knowledge of the man Jesus (a point applicable as well to Watts, McGrath, and most NT scholars). Again I repeat, this source is written in the context of the Christ of faith, not in the context of the original and originating witness to the man Jesus. It images the mythical Christ figure not the Jesus of history.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/03 @ 1:13 pm |
Read the above fact of history in the words of Schubert Ogden, one of the finest thinkers of the critical historical New Testament scholars:“ – - the writings of Scripture or of the New Testament can no longer be assumed to constitute a proper canon. This objection rests on the claim that, given our present historical methods and knowledge, none of the writings of Scripture as such can be held to satisfy the early church’s own criteria of canonicity. We now know not only that none of the Old Testament writings is apostolic witness to Jesus in the sense in which the early church assumed them to be, but also that none of the writings of the New Testament is apostolic witness to Jesus as the early church itself understood apostolicity. The sufficient evidence of this point in the case of the New Testament is that all of them have now been shown to depend on sources earlier than themselves, and hence not the original and originating witness that the early church mistook them to be in judging them to be apostolic.” (Faith and Freedom).
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/03 @ 1:17 pm |
Ed, we have no argument here. Couchoud is not at all using the New Testament writings as a source for the man Jesus. What he is doing is tracing the ideas about Jesus, the understanding of what this Jesus was, as we now find those ideas in the New Testament and other early Christian writings, and showing how the concept of Jesus evolved over time. There is no suggestion that the New Testament is a source of information about some historical person.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/03 @ 2:21 pm |
“The writings of the New Testament” is used in the technical sense of making the distinction between the creative writings of the NT authors and independent texts, defined as the earliest stratum of Jesus witness accessible to us given our own methods of historical analysis and reconstruction. As the late Willi Marxsen argued – the real “Christian” norm is the witness to Jesus that makes up the earliest layer of the synoptic Tradition. This so-called Jesus-kerygma, which is very definitely Jesus witness even though its Christology is merely implicit, in contrast to the explicit Christology that we find in Paul and John and the other New Testament writings, represent the earliest witness of faith that we today are in a position to recover. Therefore it is here, if anywhere in what Marxsen speaks of as “the canon before the canon—that we must now locate the witness of the apostles which abides as the real Christian norm. The first step in using (Scripture) as a theological authority is historical rather than hermeneutical. Specifically that is the step of reconstructing the history of tradition of which the first three gospels are the documentation, so as thereby to identify the earliest stratum in this tradition which is the real Christian norm by which even Scripture has whatever authority it has.” (Ogden).
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/04 @ 1:46 pm |
The above comment continued. This earliest stratum is identified as an entirely independent NT document with its own introduction and conclusion, its main body consisting of the most significant sayings of Jesus. Here the crucial axiom for Jesus studies needs saying. If you begin with Paul, you will misunderstand Jesus. If you begin with Jesus you will understand Paul differently. To begin with Paul is to begin Jesus studies with the writings of the NT; to begin with Jesus is to begin with the Jesus-kerygma. “Christian Origins” is a seriously misleading phrase. The word Christian was not coined until it was used of Paul and Barnabus’ mission in Antioch. More properly, we speak of origins of post Easter Jesus traditions, of the period 30 CE – 65 CE, before Christianity, before the Gospels, even partly before Paul. The entire enterprise of Jesus understanding depends on a new, but historical, reconstruction of the Jesus traditions for this apostolic period. The Jesus traditions began with two denominations, each with its own understanding of the significations of Jesus. First, the Jerusalem Jesus Movement beginning with the key apostles, emboldened by Peter’s and others vision experiences retuning to Jerusalem after having fled to their native Galilee. Their mission was to again take up the teaching of their Master Jesus, thus becoming our sole source of apostolic witness to Jesus. This was soon followed by a group of Hellenist Jews with their traditions of dying and rising gods or heroes, suggesting the notion that the significance of Jesus was his death which served as a sacrifice for the sins of mankind, proclaimed as abrogating the Torah. For Temple authorities this constituted treason. The Acts story of the stoning of Stephen, one of this Hellenist group, seems to mark an uprising put down by Temple authorities, with Paul introduced as a participant holding the garments of those casting the stones. Next we find Paul as persecutor on the road to Damascus, where he had his vision experience converting him to this group from which he received his Christ-kerygma. Paul took his Christ gospel to the Gentile world to effectively sever Jesus from his message and his Jewish roots, the environment in which the birth of Christianity took place.
.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/05 @ 11:58 am |
Ed, you’re missing my point. We have no way of verifying if any so-called sayings of Jesus, whether in an independent with its own introduction and conclusion or not, really did originate with a historical Jesus.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/05 @ 8:50 pm |
The above comment continued.
There is nothing in the least wrong with the early church’s criteria of canonicity, however mistaken its historical judgments in applying this critera. The witness of the apostles is still
rightly taken to be the real Christian norm, even if we today have to locate this norm not in the writings of the New Testament but in the earliest stratum of Christian witness accessible to us given our own methods of historical analysis and reconstruction. Only here in this earliest stratum do we have the original and originating witness based on the apostles prior faith and witness.
Hans Dieter Betz identifies this original witness to be the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 3:7 – 7:27). “The SM transmitted by the evengelists Matthew is an unusual, not to say uncanny, test in many respects. It impresses one first of all by its simplicity and straightforwardness, it addresses its readers, even the non- Christian, immediately and compels them to take a stand. Yet this dimension of the text could prove misleading were one to conclude that the simple, practical, uncompromising message of Jesus was first to be found here. This author of these essays once belonged, more or less to those who had resigned themselves to this state of research on the SM. More intense preoccupation with the SM only began during preparation of the Galatian commentary, as the extraordinarily intimate, more precisely adversarial, relationship of the Epistle to the Galatiaans and the SM continued to force itself upon me. The essays published here, bear witness to a progressively deeper penetration of the fundamental problems of the SM. Out of these studies the hypothesis arose that the SM was a pre –Matthean source composed by a redactor. This source presents us with an early form = deriving from (the Jesus Movement) of the Christian faith as a whole, which had direct links toeaching of the historical Jesus and thus constituted an alternative to Gentile Christianity as known above all from the letters of Paul, and the Gospels, as well as the later writings of the New Testament.”
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/07 @ 12:36 am |
Ed, there are ways of studying the Synoptic Gospels that lead to plausible arguments that that they do indeed contain earlier texts.
But when scholars attribute those earlier texts to the literal disciples of Jesus, or assert that the teachings in those texts are as close as we can get to the authentic words of Jesus, — when scholars do that, they are merely assuming or imagining this to be how those earliest texts came about. There is no evidence to support their beliefs that there was a Jesus who inspired those sayings. It is just as plausible to suggest that the Gospel authors were copying from earlier sayings that were thoughts on the Old Testament or moral views and that they creatively attributed these sayings to Jesus in their narratives. Or it is just as plausible to suggest that the earlier texts were recording what the authors thought were the teachings of a heavenly Jesus or a visionary one.
Even if there are earlier texts behind the Gospels — and it is clear the Gospels were not written in a literary and religious vacuum — we have no way of determining who wrote those earlier texts or what their concept of Jesus was.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/04 @ 2:09 pm |
Again you have completely misread my comment. Not that by pointing this out it might have any relevance to your dogmatic (by my definition) Jesus convictions. My comment is referring not to some way of “studying the Synoptic Gospels”, thus not saying “the Gospel authors were coping from earlier sayings” or “earlier texts behind the Gospels”, or “what the authors thought were the teachings”. What I was saying is completely separate and apart from the writings of the NT, the letters of Paul, the Gospels, as well as the later writings of the NT. This again brings into question your particular way of reading.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/21 @ 1:38 am |
Neil, your replies never cease to puzzle. I see no way my comments might be read as some “way of studying the Synoptic Gospels – -“, They are “earlier texts behind the Gospels not written in a literary and religious vacuum”, only in the sense that the Gospels were written with the authorial intent to counter the writings of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement, their opponents in the struggle for dominance. Your essay on Wrede’s secrecy motif should offer sufficient evidence. All of which points to the crucial need for a reconstruction of Jesus’ tradition origins, which should explain my attempt. The term Christian Origins is seriously misleading. Everything depends on getting the history straight – it is there for the asking – if one can but begin to get beyond his dogmatic preconceptions.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/08 @ 1:01 am |
Two related articles to “a reconstruction of the historical Jesus”, Ed Jones Dialogue.
Institute for Higher Critical Studies, Articles From The Journal of Higher Criticism
Stephen Curkpatrick, “The Spector of Stephen and the Haunting of Acts”.
Merrill P. Miller, “Beginning From Jerusalem”.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/08 @ 7:59 am |
Ed, I was not saying that your comments are a study of the Synoptic Gospels. What I wanted to convey was that Betz and others have arrived at the conclusion that the Sermon on the Mount was an independent document or set of sayings as a result of their wider studies. I am accepting your point for the sake of argument — that the SM was an independent document as you say.
What I am asking is: How do we know that its sayings really are the teachings of a historical Jesus?
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/08 @ 2:13 pm |
Neil: ”I accept this (SM an independent document to NT writings) for the sake of argument. How do we know its sayings are the teaching of a historical Jesus?” The evidence for the apostolic witness of the Sermon on the Mount is its consistent context.
Betz “More intense preoccupation with the SM only began during preparation of the Galatians commentary (the classic treatment), as the extraordinarily intimate, more precisely adversarial, relationship of the Epistle to the Galatians and the SM continued to force itself upon me. This source presents us with an early form – deriving from (the Jerusalem Jesus Movement) – of the (Jesus tradition) as a whole, which had direct links to the teaching of the HJ and thus constituted an alternative to Gentile-Christianity as known above all from the letters of Paul, the Gospels, as well as the later writings of the NT. If the (Jesus Movement) SM represents a response to the teaching of Jesus, critical of that of Gentile Christianity (which became orthodox Christianity), then it serves unmistakably to underline the well known fact of how little we know of Jesus and his teaching. (Gentile-Christianity, the source of your dogmatic Jesus understanding) The reason for our lack of knowledge are of a hermeneutical sort and cannot be overcome by an excess of good will (apologetics) , The Gentile-Christiaan authors of the Gospels transmitted to us only that part of the teaching of Jesus that they themselves understood, they handed on only that part which they were able to translate into the thought categories of Gentile Christianity, and which they judged to be worthy of transmission. (More to the point, they included no more than they judged necessary to authenticate some historicity to the Christ myth).” As to dating the SM. Its intimate relation to Paul’s Galatians places it in the mid 50s. I will extract no further from Betz’s Essays.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/09 @ 1:10 pm |
Betz nowhere attempts to establish an argument for the teachings in the SM really did originate with an historical Jesus. He, like most other historical Jesus scholars, simply assumes that some of the teachings we read about came from Jesus.
The overwhelming majority of historical Jesus scholars begin with the assumption that there was a historical Jesus whose teachings they can read today.
They all just assume this and build their arguments and interpretations on the top of that assumption.
But what if that assumption proved to be wrong?
He further assumes that there was a literal historical Peter and James in Jerusalem or that the Jerusalem Jesus Movement originated with people who knew personally the historical Jesus. But there is no proof that this was the case. It is entirely an assumption. It is an almost universally accepted assumption but it is still nothing more than an assumption.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/09 @ 2:08 pm |
{the following is copied from another thread: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2012/03/10/fear-and-loathing-in-the-bible/#comment-23786}
For the record I try once again. We seem to agree that the writings of the NT are in context propagating the Christ myth not the man Jesus. We might further agree that Christianity did not begin from Jerusalem (M. Miller), the term being first used of Paul and Barnabus’ Antioch mission after 60 CE, never used of the Jesus movement.
For the period 30 CE- 65 CE there were two radically different communities. The first, the Jerusalem Jesus Movement first led be key disciples with the intent to again take up the message of Jesus. This was soon followed by a Jewish Hellenist group taking up the idea of the salvific death which abrogated the Torah. Paul soon converted to this group to take this Christ myth gospel to the Gentile world meeting with great success. This had the effect of severing Jesus both from his message and his Jewish roots. The Gospels soon followed all written in the context of the Christ of faith, not of the man Jesus.
Betz: “More intense preoccupation with the SM only began during preparation with the Galatians commentary, as the extraordinarily intimate, more precisely, adversarial, relationship of the Epistle to the Galatians and the SM continued to force itself upon me.´
To make the point that here we are dealing with two starkly different sources, one in the contest of knowledge of Jesus, the other in the context of the Christ myth. This intimate relationship between Galatians and the SM (which comes from the Jerusalem Jesus Movement) makes them contemporary around 50 CE.
By any judgment there can be little choice of which source is the more reliable for knowledge of Jesus, if only by that much.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/11 @ 9:58 am |
Thanks Neil, very thoughtful.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/12 @ 12:37 pm |
I understand your argument — and what Betz is saying. (The basic idea of a Jerusalem led Jesus movement in some sort of rivalry with the Hellenist Christ-cult movement is not unique to Betz.)
But I see a problem with this argument.
The problem is that the argument rests on a questionable assumption that is never questioned. Betz merely assumes that the earliest sayings that made their way into the SM originated with a historical Jesus. He has no way of knowing that this really was the origin of what appears in Q or the SM or any other early tradition. It is hypothetical, not a fact, to think that the sayings originated with Jesus.
Another prominent Bible scholar, Thomas L. Thompson who has written a book entitled “The Christ Myth” has said that scholars have all assumed — only assumed — that there is a historical Jesus behind the texts.
Albert Schweitzer also wrote that there is no way to prove the historical existence of Jesus according to normal methods of historical enquiry. (Of course I am not saying Schweitzer himself was a mythicist.)
I agree with both Thompson and Schweitzer. Betz is one of the many examples of scholars who merely assumes that there is a historical Jesus behind it all as the ultimate explanation for some or all of the teachings we read in the SM.
There is no way to prove this. BUT that does NOT mean I argue there is NO historical Jesus. It only means that the question remains open.
I do argue that other positive evidence does strongly indicate that there was no historical Jesus at all — and those positive reasons I listed earlier but will repeat them here for convenience:
On the basis of these points I believe the simplest and strongest explanation for Jesus is that he originated as a theological and literary construct, not as a historical person.
So I am not rejecting Betz’s argument out of dogmatism. I am rejecting Betz’s argument for two reasons:
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/11 @ 10:46 am |
A detailed argument here is useless. It necessarily involves God talk – with no God such talk is nonsense. I can only note what I see as historical misstatements in your 4 point reasoning.
Point 1. My #9 comment: “We seem to agree that the writings of the NT are written in the context of the Christ myth, not in the context of the man Jesus”. Thus much of what one might find in these writings may not be taken as knowledge of Jesus.
Point 2. To your claim that the sayings are not original. Central to Jesus’s sayings is his idiom the Kingdom of God, a widely held given. In Jesus terms this is historically original to Jesus. Explanation involves God talk.
Point 3. To your claim the sayings are not original. The above Kingdom reference applies. To say more involves God talk.
Point 4. Paul is the origin of the Christ myth. He contributes no knowledge of Jesus.
Again Neil as I have said, where I see black you see white, our cosmologies are just that different. Thus meaningful discussion is seriously limited.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/11 @ 1:35 pm |
If you bring God into the argument then we are communicating with different rules, as I think we both understand. I do not believe that normal historical studies can allow for any gods — whether Yahweh or Zeus or Hermes or Heracles — being real actors in events or being there to back up the evidence in a certain way.
At least I think we have come to the point where we understand each other and where we part. Normal historical questions rule out God as a real actor in historical events. Historically, logically, there is no evidence that the “kingdom of God” idiom originated with a historical Jesus.
Should we study the Koran in the same way, that is with Allah in the picture to back up the core teachings of the Koran?
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/11 @ 2:45 pm |
Neil: 03/13, 8:51 am comment: “My interest is handling the evidence for Christian origins.” However different our SM understanding, to which I see little hope of reconciling, at least my treatment of origins must incite some response, I am aware of none.
My 03/11 comment which you saw fit to paste to # Ed Jones Dialogue restates my opening treatment of origins. I go to some length to make the point that “Christian origins” is a serious misnomer creating distinct historical and social inaccuracies and misunderstandings.
“Christian” was first used of Paul and Barnabus’ Antioch mission after 65 CE, it was never used of the Jerusalem Jesus Movement.
I see this as a crucial historical fact for understandings Jesus traditions. It is basic to understanding the origin of the Christ of faith myth, Pauline-kerygma, which became the context of Christianity based on the writings of the NT rather than on the Jesus-kerygma.
Reimarus (1750), the father of the Quest for the HJ, made the statement: Search the NT Scriptures and see if Christianity was not based on a historical mistake.
Again I name two online articles which I find consistent with most of the details contained in my reconstruction: Institute of Higher Criticism – Articles from the Journal of Higher Criticism:
Stephen Curkpatrick, The Spectre of Stephen And The Haunting of Acts.
Merrill P. Miller, Beginning From Jerusalem.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/13 @ 11:12 pm |
Hi Ed, the basic outline of Christian origins as you point out here is widely understood and accepted in the scholarlship, I believe. The basic idea goes back at least to Walter Bauer. More recently Burton Mack builds his thesis of the origins of the Gospel of Mark on the basic outline of this model (Hellenistic Christ cult and “Christianity” alongside Jerusalem centred “Jesus movement”). It is also used to structure Earl Doherty’s book on the development of the the non-historical Jesus idea.
In my recent post I point out that Charles Guignebert distinguishes between the Hellenistic movement that came to call itself Christian and the Aramaic churches that continued to call themselves Nazarenes.
Paul Louis Couchoud, I also recently noted, suggests the real origins of what became Christianity were far more complex than this simple dualistic model suggests. (I’m sure he’s not the only one with such a view.)
I agree that Paul’s message was a Christ myth kerygma. I agree that the way this comes across in the canonical works of the New Testament, especially through Acts and the Epistle to the Galatians, lends itself to the interpretation that a Jerusalem based-church was “anti-Pauline kerygma”.
But does not this model of origins, especially with the idea that the Jerusalem-based church was a centre that clung more closely to the original teachings of the crucified Galilean, rest on the assumption that the whole she-bang began in Palestine? Can we be really sure there was a pillar movement of some kind (e.g. seeking to preserve a different Jesus tradition) from the beginning in Palestine at all?
I think there is good reason to look to places like the Syrian Damascus and Antioch and Egypt’s Alexandria, perhaps even regions in Asia Minor, as the original centres of what came to fan out as the new religious idea. Galilee and Jerusalem may well have been nothing more than literary metaphors for the setting of a narrative as it developed. I don’t know. I probably should be including Samaria as another centre of origin of the religious idea. And who was “Paul” anyway? Is it coincdence that his name has the same meaning as a central gnostic idea, a “small one”?
The evidence is too insubstantial, I think, to allow us to be definitive about any of the who’s who and such in the early days of Christianity. Or maybe I have despaired too quickly in the face of the apparent difficulties.
In sum, I am quite comfortable with seeing the label of Christianity being applied relatively late to a major section of the various movements that over time coalesced into something closer to our religious idea.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/14 @ 6:30 am |
New Testament studies, during the period of the 1980’s, was subjected to a radical reconstruction in approach and content under the force of present historical methods and knowledge. I am aware of only several of our top scholars who have fully accommodated to it. Merrill Miller’s “Beginning from Jerusalem -” takes a good number of popular NT scholars to task for yet following the leads of Acts, including Dom Crossan, E. P. Saunders, Paula Fredrickson, Jack T. Sanders, and a dozen others. As outsiders secular critics seem uniformly fixed to traditional approaches..
The axiom crucial to NT studies: If you begin with Paul, you will misunderstand Jesus. If you begin with Jesus, you will understand Paul differently. To begin NT studies with Paul is to begin with the writings of the NT, the letters of Paul the Gospels, as well as the later writings of the NT. To begin with Jesus is to begin with the Jesus-kerygma. Ogden: “- – today we have to locate this norm (the apostolic witness), not in the writings of the NT but in the earliest stratum of tradition assessable to us.”
The best treatment of a reconstruction to identify this earliest stratum that I am aware of is set forth in a clear and straightforward manner in the article: “The Real Jesus of the Sayings “Q” Gospel”, by James M. Robinson, online. The portion of the article describing the reconstruction: the first two pages ending with the penultimate paragraph, then to page 11 beginning with section V, How Can One Get From the Sayings Gospel to Us? Continue to end of article. Responsible engagement with this work would seem to require printing, to have it in hand, to permit some level of “intense preoccupation”. We are dealing here with ultimate truth, no place for the superficial reader.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/16 @ 7:20 am |
I’m skeptical of “ultimate truth.” What does the mean? If I discover it, do I stop looking? How will I know when I find it?
Here’s the article Ed was talking about above –> http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=542
If your eye is offended buy the ugly background color and ugly font, I heartily recommend “Readability” –> http://www.readability.com/
Comment by Tim Widowfield — 2012/03/16 @ 7:35 am |
Tim, I see no reply to Robinson’s article. I introduced it as “a radical reconstruction in approach and content under the force of present historical methods and knowledge”. Whatever view you my have of my own credibliity, such an announcment from anyone in this discussion derserves some reply. Neil has in his own way given his.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/21 @ 2:10 am |
Ed, I have no reason to doubt your credibility. I hope I haven’t given you any other impression.
As far as my reaction, I’m still behind in my reading because of real life.
By the way, because of your high praise, I have purchased Betz’s collection: Essays on the Sermon on the Mount. So far, I’ve read only the back cover and a bit of the intro.
Comment by Tim Widowfield — 2012/03/21 @ 3:57 am |
Tim, the most encouraging words I have yet heard here at Vridar.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/21 @ 10:18 am |
Supplements to “The Real Jesus” which may enhance understanding.
1st Paragraph, applied to the last sentence: a newly discovered NT Scriptural source written the context of apostolic witness to Jesus – an alternative to NT writings.
1(A). 1st sentence: “- – creeds and doctrines about Christ – -“, based on the writings of the NT, the letters of Paul, the Gospels, as well as the later writings of the NT.
Last sentence: “What was Jesus own significance?” All pointing to the need for a new reconstruction of origins of post death Jesus traditions. I note here that the phrase ‘Christian Origins’ is a misnomer leading to serious historical misunderstandings and distortions. Robinson: “At the very earliest the word ‘Christian’ had not been coined. It was first used of Barnabas and Paul’s gentile church in Antioch and it may never have been used of Gentile Christianity groups. As a matter of fact, it may be something of a misnomer when for simplicity’s sake, I refer to the Q community as ‘Christian’. For these reasons I speak of the Jesus Movement instead of Jewish Christianity.
1(C). “ – - hybrid gospels, partly Mark’s and partly the sayings collection – -” i.e. the sayings collection derived from the Jerusalem Jesus Movement. Mark is written I the context of Pauline Christ myth kerygma which pointedly counters the Jesus Movement with its claim to apostolic witness to Jesus.
V(B). “ – - in his way otherworldly- -” This is not to be taken in any Christological sense, rather it commentary to his teaching.
“- -to trace a line of continuity from Jesus to Paul – -“, the line taken using the writings of the NT, the Christ myth.
V(C). “ – - another path – -“, the Gospel of Matthew because it contained the Sermon on the Mount Matt .3-11. Matt. 12-27 is copying out Mark almost by rote. Matthean Christianity is the SM.
V(F). “ – - from a small community, that had begun in Galilee – -“, the Jesus Movement which began in Jerusalem with Galilee community under its council.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/26 @ 11:46 am |
Tim has come up with the article from a diffeent site from the one I made reference to, so I revise my sugggestions for beginning by reading the portion of the article describing the reconstruction. From the beginning through the paragraph which begins:This old Sayings Gospel – - “, then scrol to section V. How Can One Get From the Saying Gospel to Us?, to lhe end of the article.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/16 @ 9:56 am |
Ed, I have read the article by James Robinson. I don’t see it as a groundbreaking insight, however. I see it as a very conservative reconstruction of what he thinks is a plausible explanation for the evidence as we have it today. But so much of it — dare I say all of it — is nothing but surmise. It is opinion. It is an imaginative reconstruction that conforms to (and is probably inspired by) generally orthodox Christian beliefs about Christianity’s origins. There are other explanations in the literature and each reader must make a judgment about each one he or she reads.
Robinson simply assumes that the Sermon on the Mount was a compilation of sayings thought to be from Jesus. He at no place attempts to argue this. It is simply assumed.
He simply assumes there was a Jesus behind it all. He begins by discussing what we can know about Jesus — which assumes from the outset that there was a Jesus to know about.
What I find the most problematic of all — since it is clearly the most theologically tendentious part of his essay — is his repeated inference that the Sermon on the Mount or the Sayings Gospel of Q is filled with sayings that make Jesus somehow “otherworldly”, unlike us, distinct, different, unique, etc. Robinson waxes eloquently about how we learn such noble spiritual insights about the nature of the Kingdom of God from these sayings, but the reality is that these sayings were nothing but bland common-places found on the lips of any and every Cynic philosopher of the day. There is nothing unique or especially spiritual or distinctive about any of the sayings. They are commonplace maxims — and they were commonplace maxims back in the supposed days of Jesus.
Robinson says the Sermon on the Mount existed as a separate unit before it was added to the Gospel of Matthew because it has a clear beginning and ending. That is a very weak reason to establish his claim. Many commentators have noted that the Sermon on the Mount is something of an analogue, or a transvaluation of, the giving of the law through Moses. So Matthew structured his Gospel in 5 sections each with a beginning and ending. There is no reason at all to accept the SM existed as an independent literary unit. Robinson’s argument is one of the weakest we can encounter.
There is much more, but in sum, the article is primarily an opinion piece fed by conservative Christian belief, in my opinion.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/16 @ 7:07 pm |
Neil: “What I find most problematic of all — since it is clearly the most theologically tendentious part of the essay – is his repeated reference that the Sermon on the Mount or the Sayings Gospel Q is filled with sayings that make Jesus somehow “otherworldly”, unlike us, distinctively different, unique, etc.”. This statement stands as but one example of the level of your abject fundamental misunderstanding of Robinson’s reconstruction of Jesus traditions which constitute a radical historical rethinking of the writings of the NT with its Christ myth Pauline kerygma.
The one reference using the word “otherworldly” reads: “The real Jesus — was not only in his way otherworldly – he was worlds apart from us!” Robinson in no conceivable way is referring to Christological descriptions of the person of Jesus. Rather these are unmistakably descriptions of Jesus message for which he fashioned the idiom the Kingdom of God.
It is against this level of this misunderstanding that explains “what mysticism has to do with Robinson’s article”. From the least rudimentary awareness of self-examination, the legitimacy of our particular way of thinking needs to be placed before the judgment of some higher standard of critical thinking, The world’s greatest rational thinkers must stand, by any reason, as our most certain standard.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/20 @ 12:26 pm |
Ed, I agree with your understanding of Robinson’s use of the word “Otherworldly”. Sorry if I indicated otherwise. My point stands when I express it more precisely that Robinson uses the word to describe the message of Jesus. My point stands even with that correction of wording. It is the message itself that is banal. What we read in the SM is nothing more than common philosophical or ethical maxims of the day.
You are seizing on details that you see as details of misunderstandings while at the same time completely ignoring the main points of my arguments or comments about Robinson’s article and his claims.
If you think that Einstein operated by a “higher rational standard” than is accessible to anyone else I disagree. 1+1=2, logical contradictions and fallacies, substantiated versus unsubstantiated claims, — these are accessible to all.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/20 @ 12:36 pm |
Neil, once again your reply forces the inexpressible state: where I see white you see black.
I turn completely away from Christianity to the scientific guild for what I take to be a statement of the ultimate standard for judging the legitimacy of rational thought.
The thought of the world’s greatest physics, thus the greatest rational thinkers, “the founders and grand theorists of modern (quantum and relativity) physics: Einstein. Schroedinger, Heisenberg, Bohr, Eddington, Pauli, de Biogue, Jeans and Plank, virtually the entire pantheon of perennial philosophers, and they all reached the conclusion that a key tenet of perennial philosophy is that in mystical consciousness subject and object become one in the act of knowing; they were also aware that certain philosophers claimed that Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Bohr’s Complementarity Principle supported this mystical idea, because, it was said, in order for the subject to know the object, it had to “interfere” with it, and that proved that the subject-object duality had been transcended by modern physics. None of these physicists believed this assertion. Bohr himself stated quite plainly that “the entire notion of complementarity does in no way involve a departure from our position as detached observers of nature.” Accordingly, for these reasons these theorists rejected the “physics supports mysticism” view.
Their critique, which is not altered by any particular advance in physics, is a logical critique that cuts at right angles to any possible new discovery – it is simple, straightforward and profound; at one stroke, it cuts across virtually everything written on the supposed parallel between physics and mysticism. Briefly the critique is this: In the mystical consciousness, Reality is apprehended directly and immediately, meaning without any mediation, any symbolic elaboration, any conceptualization, or any abstractions; subject and object become one in a timeless act that is beyond any and all forms of mediation.” (Ken Wilber).
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/18 @ 5:17 am |
Sorry, Ed, but I don’t see how mysticism has anything to do with my comment on Robinson’s article. We can all recognized the simple rules of logic and analyze where an assumption is substituted for evidence for a claim. That’s all I’m relying on and I don’t believe anyone — not even Einstein — would dispute the validity of that exercise.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/18 @ 10:16 am |
My above statement should read: “I turn completely away from Christianity to the scientific guild for what I take to be the ultimate standard for judging the legitimacy of ones particular rational thought”. Apologies for the misstatment.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/20 @ 11:19 am |
Yes Einstein would seriously question it.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/20 @ 6:53 am |
If you really think so, and really think we can validly leave behind the normal standards of logic and evidence, then there is no basis for any rational exchange. You are asking us to play tennis without a net: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/11/07/appealing-to-faith-in-a-search-for-truth-like-playing-tennis-without-a-net/
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/20 @ 7:28 am |
Neil, Was there some reason for not commenting on my treatment of Wrede’s messianic secrete,
even to say it is true or false?
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/20 @ 10:18 am |
I don’t understand, Ed. What you said is widely accepted in the scholarship. I don’t disagree with the argument that Mark was written to denigrate that form of Christianity that claimed the authority of the twelve or some form of “Jerusalem Jesus movement”. I just don’t see its relevance to this discussion.
Comment by Neil Godfrey — 2012/03/20 @ 10:53 am |
With all admisions of discrediting the historicity of NT writings, agreeing they image the mythical Christ not Jesus, from what sources do you base your critical convictions?
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/03/21 @ 2:24 am |
Tim, I also was also raised in a fundamentalist church, however my reactions have been quite different. I certainly did not experience the excesses of beliefs which you describe. However it became evident, from very early on, that the packaging was quite wrong, yet the reality of God as presence or that the man Jesus was our most certain source of God talk was never in doubt. One constant standby was the particular faith of my father. For him faith was not something one questioned nor to speak of, it was a way of being, I never doubted that his faith was real. In any case response to my church experience throughout my adult life might be described as that of “faith seeking understanding”. I was always alert to the most legitimate authentic religious voice I became aware of.
In a recent comment Neil wrote: “All conclusions in history are necessarily tentative and open to review. How to account for Christian Origins, that is the historical question”.
As to the first statement I will try to take Neil at his word in spite of all. To the second, a question, I again make the claim that my reconstruction in the form of a letter to R. Joseph Hoffmann offers an answer consistent with present historical methods and knowledge. I dare say I am open to comments.
Comment by Ed Jones — 2012/04/03 @ 4:44 am |