A fictional dialogue about the Historical Jesus between a truth-seeker, a liberal scholar and a New Ager (Part 2)

The first part of this dialogue can be read here.

TS: I'd like to press a point about a previous assumption which you made in our previous dialogue.

Liberal: Fine.

TS: You quoted sympathetically the preface of a book by the Jesus Seminar in which a secularist and atheist approach to the historical Jesus is implied.

Liberal: Yes, and I'm glad to repeat it:

the Christ of creed and dogma . . . can no longer command the assent of those who have seen the heavens through Galileo’s telescope. The old deities and demons were swept from the skies by that remarkable glass. Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo have dismantled the mythological abodes of the gods and Satan, and bequeathed us secular heavens. (emphasis by TS)

I entirely agree with the Jesus Seminar that Galileo's telescope implies secularism and atheism. More exactly, sciences like astronomy have shown that atheistic naturalism is true. This is very deep, intellectually sophisticated and powerful scientific insight. 

This insight is a testimony of the intellectual power and unprecedent genius of the members of the Jesus Seminar and liberal scholarship in general (to which I'm glad to belong), towering intellects that I'd wish were more widespread among New Testament scholars.

TS: But if you approach the historical Jesus with such assumption, then whatever evidence for the supernatural is found in the Gospels will be assumed to be false (= non-factual), because your naturalistic methodology excludes it in advance as fictional.

Liberal: Yeah, because what we want to find is the truth, not ancient mythology nor superstitions.

TS: But what would happen if the truth is precisely that the historical Jesus was supernatural (e.g. divine). What would happen if Jesus was, actually, the Son of God and the incarnation of God, as Christians believe? In this case, your methodology will exclude an essential (and crucial!) aspect of the historical Jesus on behalf of his purely human aspects.

Note that I'm not saying that it was the case. I'm saying that your methodology would exclude it if it were the case that Jesus was divine.

Liberal: It is impossible. But even if it were possible, science can allow only what is natural.

TS: You see. Your answer reveals your underlying philosophical assumptions and how they condition, in advance, the results. They show that for you the truth is secondary, what is primary for you is to find a naturalistic understanding and portrait of the historical Jesus, which are the only ones allowed by your methodology. 

What you and your collegues have made is to define historical truth in terms of naturalistic truth, so if something doesn't fit with such naturalistic explanations it is considered non-historical, fictional, an invention of Christians.

Liberal: You call yourself a truth-seeker, but you seem to be extremely credulous of early Christians and their pre-scientific, theological superstitions.

TS: What do you mean?

Liberal: Well, in a fundamentalist-like fashion, you take for granted and at face-value that the bunch of stories found in the Gospels are true.

TS: You don't understand me. That is not at all my approach as a seeker for the truth.

As I argued in our previous dialogue, I've defended particular traditions about the Historical Jesus employing the standard criteria of authenticity. I'm fully and exclusively playing with your critical rules of evidence evaluation.

I'm not even assuming the general reliaibility (let alone, the inerrancy) of the Gospels.

Nothing in my argument implies that "I take for granted" what Christians say.

What I'm saying is twofold: 1-If we apply consistently the criteria of authenticity, several crucial aspects of the Christian view of Jesus (Christology) can be justified on historical grounds. And 2- That liberal scholars like you dismiss such evidence appealing to mere assumptions and speculations, not supported by any evidence.

For example, the standard application of the criterion of mutiple attestation supports the conclusion that Jesus was born in Bethelhem, not in Nazareth. Therefore, I conclude based upon the evidence that it is more likely that Jesus was born in Bethelhem than in Nazareth.

Liberal: You see. You're too uncritical of the possibility that Christians created such an invention in order to make Jesus appear as the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament. I find the latter to be more likely. And my collegues agree.

 Most liberal scholars agree that Jesus was NOT born in Bethelhem.

TS: Is it uncritical for me to reach a conclusion based on the criterion of multiple attestation?

Liberal: Well no...

TS: What positive evidence do you have that Jesus was NOT born in Bethelhem?

Liberal:  The Old Testament predicts that the Messiah was going to born in Bethelhem. And after Jesus was exalted by the early Christians, it was very easy for them to create the tradition that Jesus was born in Bethelhem, not in Nazareth.

TS: You see. You dismiss the criterion of mutiple attestation based on your "very easy" assumption. You don't accept the criteria of authenticity when it supports Christian conclusions (in particular, traditions implying High Christology). You only accept the criteria of authenticity when they support anti-Christian or not distinctively Christian conclusions.

You use the criteria inconsistently.

In particular, your answer about Jesus' birth place assumes:

1-That Jesus was not the Messiah predicted in the Old Testament and 

2-That the criterion of multitple attestation supporting Jesus' birth place in Bethelhem is defeated by your ("very easy") assumption that Christians invented such traditions about Jesus' birth place.

I'd like to know that positive, concrete EVIDENCE can you offer for these couple assumptions.

Liberal: I only am critical of the possibility that Christians have made up such stories, a point regarding which you seem to be completely blind.

TS: False. I'm fully aware of such possibility too, but mere possibility is NOT evidence.

Arguing that something is possible doesn't make it actual. You have to present evidence that shows that such possibility was actualized in the specific case we're discussing (e.g. Jesus' birth place). Sheer posibility is NOT evidence.

The criterion of multiple attestation supports that Jesus was born in Bethelhem, but your claim that "it was possible" or "it could be the case" or "it is easy" that Christians "could" invent such a thing is NOT evidence. It is sheer speculation and prejudice (a prejudice which overrides contrary evidence supported by the criteria of authenticity!)

It reminds me of professional skeptic Ray Hyman who, in a paper reviewing the evidence for remote viewing, agreed that he couldn't find any flaw in it, but he remains skeptic because "it is possible" that undetected potential flaws will appear in the future. 

In Hyman's words:

The SAIC experiments are well-designed and the investigators have taken pains to eliminate the known weaknesses in previous parapsychological research. In addition, I cannot provide suitable candidates for what flaws, if any, might be present.

Note that Hyman agrees that the SAIC experiments were well-designed and not flaw is evident in them (in the analogy with the historical Jesus research, we would say that a given tradition pass the criteria of authenticity, like Jesus being born in Bethelhem which pass the criterion of multiple attestation).

But since Hyman is extremely prejudiced against the paranormal, the above evidence is insufficient and hence he appeals to his own prejudices as a overrriding reason to remain unconvinced (despite of the evidence!). 

In Hyman's words:

Just the same, it is impossible in principle to say that any particular experiment or experimental series is completely free from possible flaws. An experimenter cannot control for every possibility--especially for potential flaws that have not yet been discovered.

In other words, since it is "possible" that undiscoveried potential flaws are present (even if not concrete, specific evidence of such flaws exist), Hyman is glad to keep his skepticism intact.

Hyman's fallacy is the same of many liberal scholars: Assuming that a mere "possibility" is evidence. (In the case of Hyman, the mere possibility of "undetected flaws", and in the case of liberal scholars the mere possibility of Christians inventing wholly fictional stories and put them in Jesus' lips). 

You cannot refute scientific evidence appealing to mere "possibilities", in the same way that you cannot refute Christological traditions about Jesus which pass the criteria of authenticity appealing to mere "possibilities" of Christian inventions.

Hyman wouldn't appeal to "mere possibilities" to cast doubts on the theory of evolution or the evidence for the correlation between mental and brain states (because Hyman is sympathetic to these views!), and the liberal scholars wouldn't appeal to "mere possibilities of Christian inventions" to deny the criterion of multiple attestation which supports the existence of the historical Jesus (as some mythicists and denialists like atheist Richard Carrier do).

Hyman, his fellows skeptics and liberal scholars, use the "mere possibilities" gambit only to deny or cast doubts on views that they don't like (the paranormal in the case of skeptics, the Christian/divine view of Jesus in the case of liberals).

My position, far from being an example of credulity, it is an example OBJECTIVITY, HONESTY and CONSISTENCY in the use and evaluation of the evidence. I have not an axe to grind against the Christian view of Jesus and therefore have no problem in fully accepting evidence which supports it.

Liberal:  I don't know who Hyman is, but I tend to agree with his skepticism: Parapsychology has a long story of fraud and deception, so the presumption of fraud is largely justified.

TS: But such presumption cannot override the concrete, specific evidence found in specific experiments supporting parapsychological claims. If the experiment is well-designed and the evidence technically good, then you must accept it (regardless of the supposed "long" history of frauds in parapsychology).

Likewise, if the evidence that a given Christological tradition is good (e.g. being found in the Q material and/or passing other criteria), then you must accept that it is likely to be historical.

No untestable speculation about "it was easy to Christians to put that in Jesus' lips" will refute such evidence.

Liberal: I don't agree at all with your arguments. I find them too much credulous and sympathetic to the Christian view and to the "paranormal".

TS: And I find your views too much biased against the Christian view (and, apparently, to the paranormal too). You are inconsistent in the handling of the evidence. 

You only accept the criteria of authenticity when they support non-Christological traditions!

Liberal: I don't think so.

TS: Let me test it: How many of your liberal collegues accept the evidence for the resurrection? I don't want to discuss this now, just a simple question.

Liberal: Virtually nobody, as far I know. We accept some facts, but not the resurrection itself.

TS: But the evidence for the resurrection passes SEVERAL of the criteria of authenticity.

Liberal: Perhaps, but it is a miracle and science cannot accept miracles.

TS: But then their rejection of the resurrection is not based on historical evidence, but on a naturalistic prejudices against miracles.

Like in the case of the teachings of Jesus (and teachings about his divine self-perception), in the case of the resurrection you only seem to accept those aspects of the evidential database which are palatable to you (instead of accepting those aspects which pass the criteria of authenticity, regardless of whether they support or not the Christian view).

Liberal: You again comes with your repetitive accusation of "assumptions" and "prejudices".  We are scientists, not religious believers. My only prejudice is the prejudice of science! Read again the preface of the Jesus Seminar book: science has give us SECULAR heavens! 

No God, devil, spirits, resurrections, etc. can be allowed!

NA: Can I participate in this exchange?

TS and Liberal: Welcome!

NA: I don't understand your use of "natural" vs" supernatural". For me, "everything is consciousness", and this includes both the spiritual world and the physical world.

We are manifestations of consciousness.

TS: How do you define "consciousness", NA?

NA: For me, it is the all-pervading intelligence of the cosmos.

TS: Is such consciousness a concrete, individual PERSON?

NA: Well...

TS: If it is a person, it is what theists call GOD, and basically you're saying that such person created everything that exists (besides himself) which is also an essential point of theism.

NA: I don't see it as a person like you or me, I think it is beyond of it...

TS: But theists don't think God is "like you or me". Being a person doesn't mean being a HUMAN person. Certainly, theists will agree with you that God is a lot beyond of it...

NA: What I mean is that for me God is a kind of universal consciousness which is in eveything that we see, even in the most little atom we can find intelligence, consciousness.

TS (realizing that his NA friend seems to be confused about the concepts, conflating pantheism with theism, intelligence with consciousness, and not realizing that the latter, in their higher levels, are properties of persons,  TS decides to leave the discussion here and pass the ball to the liberal): Perhaps my liberal friend wants to say something.

Liberal: I'm an atheist and I don't think I can contribute much to such speculations. For me, "consciousness" is a property of the physical brain and doesn't exist without a physical brain. Talking of "universal consciousness" only would make sense if an "universal biological brain" would exist, and this is nonsense.

The scientific worldview cannot countenance such fantasies.

Read Susan Blackmore's books on consciousness for details.

TS: I think we can discuss more about God and consciousness in future dialogues, but my main interests in these dialogues is to discuss about the historical Jesus.

See you the next time!

End of this dialogue