So I just started reading The God Delusion..

[Smoke]

Yes, but it's very likely that parts of Mark were added later on, so probably part of it was before the destruction, and other parts after.

There's no doubt that the very last parts of Mark were added on later, but that doesn't seem like a very good reason to move up the date of the work in general.

Yes it was but that was for the reasons that you proposed in your other post, high infant mortality rate etc.

You don't want to go too far in the other direction, either, though. Infant mortality (and, for women, childbed mortality) weren't the only factors in reducing life expectancy in ancient times. People were still much more likely to die in their forties and fifties than they are now, and a man over sixty was a very old man indeed. The present level of life expectancy -- in the advanced nations, I mean -- is unprecedented in human history. Even 150 years ago in the United States, men in their fifties were referred to as "old men," and I've seen parish registers from 17th and 18th century Germany where, for two or more generations, not a single person attained the age of seventy. One of my 17th-century ancestors in New Jersey who lived into his early sixties outlived three wives; his fourth wife, who lived to be about seventy, outlived four husbands.

 

[logician]

I've been assiduously avoiding the whole off-topic discussion about the gospels, but I can't let that pass.

The average life expectancy argument falls flat because life expectancy figures, up until very recent times, are heavily skewed by infant and childhood mortality rates. For instance, I seem to remember reading that 3 out of 5 people born in 14th century Europe died before the age of five. The thing about life expectancy is that the longer you live, the better your chances of living even longer. If the average life expectancy is 35, that doesn't mean nobody lives to the age of seventy. For example, one of my direct ancestors attained the age of 94 at a time when the average life expectancy was 38.

It's not at all unreasonable for believers to think that people who knew Jesus were still living 40 years after Jesus' death, which gets you to about the time Mark was written. There are good reasons for thinking that the gospels -- and especially the three other than Mark -- were not written by eyewitnesses, but life expectancy isn't one of them.

On topic: I don't know what someone who approaches The God Delusion with a pre-conceived dislike of Dawkins should expect to get out the book. It's hard for me to say, since I like Dawkins very much, especially because of The Ancestor's Tale.

When it comes to theism, I think Dawkins' chief shortcoming is that he's genuinely dumbfounded by the religious excesses he comes across. He seems at times to throw his hands up and say, "Can't you see how insane this is?!" And of course the point is that they can't see it at all. I don't think he can really understand what it is to be so immersed in religious dogma that it all seems quite normal and reasonable.

I think that might be why it's hard for most true believers to connect with Dawkins. His writings are useful and entertaining mostly to people who already agree with him and to those who are already questioning their faith. However, he's performed a tremendous service in giving a lot of atheists the courage to be more open about their atheism, and he helps keep the discussion going. A lot more people are thinking and talking about atheism, religion and ethics because of Dawkins, and I think that's a very good thing.

If you go with probabilities, given the short life expetancies, and total lack of extrra-biblical evidence that MArk or any other disciple even existed, the probabilily is essesntially zero that Mark was written by an eyewitness to the life of the supposed Jesus.

The important point here, is given the style of writing of the gospels, and their great similiarty to pre-existant tales from other religions/philisophies, the probabililty is very high they are works of fiction, written for the purpose of gaining believers for the Christiain cult that was growing at that time.

 

[doppelganger]

Some stats with links that I've posted elsewhere:

The average life expectancy at the time of the Roman Empire was around 22 years. Europe didn't achieve a 30-35 year life expectancy until the Renaissance. Today it's around 75 years. In the Roman Empire the infant morality rate was 40% (2 out of every five children died by age 5, or 400 of every 1000). The U.S. today has an infant mortality rate of .643% (6.43 per 1000 children). The average age at marriage for girls in Ancient Rome was 13-14. In the U.S. today, the average is 25.1.

If you combine the 22 year life expectancy with the 40% infant mortality and assume generously a 0 year life for all of the 40% ('infant mortality' is actually defined as dying before the age of five years), then factoring out the infant mortality, the life expectancy would have been around 35-36 years (and that's erring toward the high end).

EDIT: I see my Roman Empire life expectancy link is now broken. I'll get a new link for that stat, but the 22 years number is based on peer-reviewed research.

EDIT 2: Here we go - SpringerLink - Reference Work Entry

 

[Smoke]

If you go with probabilities, given the short life expetancies, and total lack of extrra-biblical evidence that MArk or any other disciple even existed, the probabilily is essesntially zero that Mark was written by an eyewitness to the life of the supposed Jesus.

Please note that I didn't say that Mark or any other gospel was written by an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, and I don't believe they were. Even the traditional, legendary attribution of the second gospel to Mark doesn't claim that he was an eyewitness; rather, it is said that "Mark" based his gospel on accounts he heard from Peter.

What I said was that life expectancy was not a good reason for rejecting the idea. Neither is the "total lack of extra-biblical evidence that Mark or any other disciple even existed." When trying to piece together ancient history, we often have to rely on secondary and late sources; your insistence on contemporary written evidence betrays a lack of familiarity with the discipline, and does nothing to bolster your case with people who know better.

The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses; that's so certain that it's hardly even worth discussing. However, most of the evidence for that conclusion is contained in the gospels themselves, and to be able to discuss it intelligently you have to be familiar with the gospels and with the history, geography and archaeology of Palestine. To dismiss the historicity of the gospels for specious and ill-founded reasons is no better, and no more rational, than accepting their historicity for specious and ill-founded reasons.

Reason is more than suspicion. It takes hard work.

And I'm more than a little disappointed that nobody wants to discuss The God Delusion on this thread; that would have been more interesting.

 

[challupa]

And I'm more than a little disappointed that nobody wants to discuss The God Delusion on this thread; that would have been more interesting.

Midnight, I just finished the book and I would be willing to discuss it. I just sent it back to the library, so we'll have to see how good a memory I have.

 

[Smoke]

So what did you think?

 

[doppelganger]

And I'm more than a little disappointed that nobody wants to discuss The God Delusion on this thread; that would have been more interesting.

I've read all three of the big atheism books of the last few years - this one, Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Sam Harris's End of Faith.

Of the three, Dennett's is the least clearly tainted by an agenda and the best written of the three, though he does borrow several arguments from Dawkins.

 

[challupa]

So what did you think?

I liked it for the most part. I read it at the same time as Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great" and thought Hitchens was the better of the two. I feel Dawkins is right about many things. He tends to be quite absolute, no room for argument. He give very good arguments against the possibility of their being a God that I agree with. Since I don't have the book in front of me, maybe you can ask me about some of the parts you liked or didn't like and I will try to respond. Trigger my memory!!

 

[Magic Man]

I'm about halfway through it right now. So far, it's pretty much what I expected. He makes some very good points, but he makes some mistakes in my view. I have not read any of the other three "Horsemen" yet.

 

[Smoke]

I've read all three of the big atheism books of the last few years - this one, Dennett's Breaking the Spell and Sam Harris's End of Faith.

Of the three, Dennett's is the least clearly tainted by an agenda and the best written of the three, though he does borrow several arguments from Dawkins.

I'll have to read that, then. I've read The God Delusion and The End of Faith, and liked them both, although I'd quibble with a few points in each. I haven't read Dennett, and I haven't read God Is Not Good. Christopher Hitchens annoys me, even when he's right.

I'm a great admirer of Dawkins, but I sympathize more with Harris in that he grants a place for mystical experience even in the absence of god. On the other hand, I think Dawkins is the more careful thinker overall.

By the time I read them, both books seemed to me to pointing out the obvious a lot of the time. It was rather like reading John Shelby Spong or some of Bart Ehrman's books. You find yourself saying, "Well, maybe I should have bought a book that would tell me something I didn't already know." But those kinds of books have their uses, and I think both authors -- and Harris in Letter To a Christian Nation, as well -- did a good job, and all three books were a good read.

 

[Smoke]

I liked it for the most part. I read it at the same time as Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great" and thought Hitchens was the better of the two. I feel Dawkins is right about many things. He tends to be quite absolute, no room for argument. He give very good arguments against the possibility of their being a God that I agree with. Since I don't have the book in front of me, maybe you can ask me about some of the parts you liked or didn't like and I will try to respond. Trigger my memory!!

Ha! It's been a long time since I read it; I'm expecting you to trigger my memory.

 

[crystalonyx]

Please note that I didn't say that Mark or any other gospel was written by an eyewitness to the life of Jesus, and I don't believe they were. Even the traditional, legendary attribution of the second gospel to Mark doesn't claim that he was an eyewitness; rather, it is said that "Mark" based his gospel on accounts he heard from Peter.

What I said was that life expectancy was not a good reason for rejecting the idea. Neither is the "total lack of extra-biblical evidence that Mark or any other disciple even existed." When trying to piece together ancient history, we often have to rely on secondary and late sources; your insistence on contemporary written evidence betrays a lack of familiarity with the discipline, and does nothing to bolster your case with people who know better.

The gospels were not written by eyewitnesses; that's so certain that it's hardly even worth discussing. However, most of the evidence for that conclusion is contained in the gospels themselves, and to be able to discuss it intelligently you have to be familiar with the gospels and with the history, geography and archaeology of Palestine. To dismiss the historicity of the gospels for specious and ill-founded reasons is no better, and no more rational, than accepting their historicity for specious and ill-founded reasons.

Reason is more than suspicion. It takes hard work.

And I'm more than a little disappointed that nobody wants to discuss The God Delusion on this thread; that would have been more interesting.

This post really makes little sense, are you claiming that hearsay is "good" evidence?

The gospels themselves are almost laughably fictitious in their writing style, with first person "quotes" that would have impossible for anyone to have been an eyewitness to. The gospels desperately need independant historical verifciation to be considered to be anything more than fiction, and there simply is nothing out there that fits that category.

 

[Smoke]

This post really makes little sense, are you claiming that hearsay is "good" evidence?

The gospels themselves are almost laughably fictitious in their writing style, with first person "quotes" that would have impossible for anyone to have been an eyewitness to. The gospels desperately need independant historical verifciation to be considered to be anything more than fiction, and there simply is nothing out there that fits that category.

I'd suggest you read the post again. I wasn't arguing that the gospels were historically accurate, I was arguing against saying so based on specious reasoning.

Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the study of ancient history knows that we have to take our sources where we can get them, and then try to separate fact from fiction and reporting from propaganda. You simply can't impose the same standards of evidence as you would if you were studying, say, Harry Truman.

There is no doubt whatever that the gospels are heavily encrusted with myth and legend. They simply are not historically accurate in every detail, and no serious scholar without a dogmatic axe to grind thinks that they are. Nor are they at all likely to be historically inaccurate in every detail, and again, it's ideology rather than scholarship that leads people to say they are.

To sum up: You and logician are correct in saying that the gospels are historically unreliable, but incorrect about the extent to which that is true and about the reasons you've given (on this thread) for saying so. The evidence for Jesus is so sparse that it remains possible to disagree about whether he was a revolutionary or an itinerant sage, whether he considered himself the Messiah or not, and all kinds of other important details. We just don't know that much. We do know a little, though, and to simply sweep Jesus out the door of history because you imagine that no accurate facts about him could have survived oral transmission for forty years, or because our sparse sources don't meet the standards we'd expect for modern sources, is every bit as fatuous as believing that every legendary detail is true.

 

[challupa]

Ha! It's been a long time since I read it; I'm expecting you to trigger my memory.

Well I liked one of his reasons why there could not be a creator God. He said that in order for there to be a creator god it would create the problem of what created it and on and on. I see some flaws in that. Of course most who believe in god don't see god needing to create himself. But I have a problem with that as does Dawkins. I just cannot understand or wrap my mind around a creator that has always existed. I have a hard enough time envisoning a universe without beginning or end. I think most agree that there was something that existed before the Big Bang or the Big Bang would never have happened. What or how all this came to be is a mystery to me. If you have answers to this please I encourage you to enlighten me.

 

[logician]

I'd suggest you read the post again. I wasn't arguing that the gospels were historically accurate, I was arguing against saying so based on specious reasoning.

Anyone with the slightest familiarity with the study of ancient history knows that we have to take our sources where we can get them, and then try to separate fact from fiction and reporting from propaganda. You simply can't impose the same standards of evidence as you would if you were studying, say, Harry Truman.

There is no doubt whatever that the gospels are heavily encrusted with myth and legend. They simply are not historically accurate in every detail, and no serious scholar without a dogmatic axe to grind thinks that they are. Nor are they at all likely to be historically inaccurate in every detail, and again, it's ideology rather than scholarship that leads people to say they are.

To sum up: You and logician are correct in saying that the gospels are historically unreliable, but incorrect about the extent to which that is true and about the reasons you've given (on this thread) for saying so. The evidence for Jesus is so sparse that it remains possible to disagree about whether he was a revolutionary or an itinerant sage, whether he considered himself the Messiah or not, and all kinds of other important details. We just don't know that much. We do know a little, though, and to simply sweep Jesus out the door of history because you imagine that no accurate facts about him could have survived oral transmission for forty years, or because our sparse sources don't meet the standards we'd expect for modern sources, is every bit as fatuous as believing that every legendary detail is true.

Except that Julius Caesar, a contemporary of Jesus, managed to have numerous historical accounts of his life, including his own writings, and many artifacts, so "age" may not be the overriding factor here, but the simple lack of any reliable historical evidence that a man resembling the biblical Jesus ever existed.

 

[Storm]

Except that Julius Caesar, a contemporary of Jesus, managed to have numerous historical accounts of his life, including his own writings, and many artifacts, so "age" may not be the overriding factor here, but the simple lack of any reliable historical evidence that a man resembling the biblical Jesus ever existed.

Compared to Dubya, there's no documentation of my life. Does that mean I don't exist, either?

 

[Smoke]

Well I liked one of his reasons why there could not be a creator God. He said that in order for there to be a creator god it would create the problem of what created it and on and on. I see some flaws in that. Of course most who believe in god don't see god needing to create himself. But I have a problem with that as does Dawkins. I just cannot understand or wrap my mind around a creator that has always existed. I have a hard enough time envisoning a universe without beginning or end. I think most agree that there was something that existed before the Big Bang or the Big Bang would never have happened. What or how all this came to be is a mystery to me. If you have answers to this please I encourage you to enlighten me.

I think Bertrand Russell said it best: "[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God."[/FONT]

It's not meaningful to talk about anything existing "before" the Big Bang, because the Big Bang is the beginning of time. There is no "before."

 

[Smoke]

Except that Julius Caesar, a contemporary of Jesus, managed to have numerous historical accounts of his life, including his own writings, and many artifacts, so "age" may not be the overriding factor here, but the simple lack of any reliable historical evidence that a man resembling the biblical Jesus ever existed.

It ought to be immediately obvious that Julius Caesar is not a typical person, and that an itinerant Jewish sage/rabblerouser/whatever cannot be expected to have left anything like the kind of mark Caesar left. There is no surviving contemporary record of Muhammad, Boadicea, or the First Punic War. Our primary source for the life of Basil Bulgaroktonos was written after his death by a man who was a child when Basil died, and Basil was an emperor -- not an ancient emperor, either, but a medieval emperor.

Paul's epistle to the Galatians is thought to have been written in the 40s or 50s, and thus predates the gospels by about a generation or more. It's often noted that Paul seems more concerned with a mystical Christ than with the historical Jesus, but Paul refers to his adversary James as "the Lord's brother." I can't imagine any credible reason he'd do so, given their rivalry, unless James -- who was still living -- was known to have been the brother of Jesus. That's better independent confirmation than we have for the existence of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) or Hamilcar Barca.

 

[challupa]

I think Bertrand Russell said it best: "[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]"If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God."[/FONT]

It's not meaningful to talk about anything existing "before" the Big Bang, because the Big Bang is the beginning of time. There is no "before."

Well that's kind of how I see the world as everything being god, if that's a good name for it. I don't see a creator god as being feasible, but I don't know what started all of this. That is why I wonder about the Big Bang I guess.

 

[Smoke]

Well that's kind of how I see the world as everything being god, if that's a good name for it. I don't see a creator god as being feasible, but I don't know what started all of this. That is why I wonder about the Big Bang I guess.

Nobody really knows, and only fools pretend they do.