OJBs Web Site: Blog Page

Note: You are currently viewing my old web site. There is a new version with most of this content at OJB.NZ.
The new site is being updated, uses modern techniques, has higher quality media, and has a mobile-friendly version.
This old site will stay on-line for a while, but maybe not indefinitely. Please update your bookmarks. Thanks.

Add a Comment (Go Up to OJB's Blog Page)

They Never Change

Entry 1656, on 2014-06-02 at 14:41:17 (Rating 3, Skepticism)

If you follow this blog you might notice that I start a lot of posts with the phrase "if you follow this blog..." No, actually what I was going to say is that if you follow this blog you will notice that my opponents in debates tend to be of two types: religious believers, and political conservatives or libertarians.

For example, look at my frequent debates with "richard" regarding religion, and the two recent discussions about politics/economics with "Spinning For Difficulty" and "Linuxgal". One common trend with these discussions (or debates or arguments) is that the points go back and forwards and then my opponent just suddenly stops responding.

There could be many possible explanations for this: it could be that my opponent just gets sick of trying to convince me of the facts and gives up, or it could be that they get busy doing other stuff, or maybe they think that as the blog owner I should have the last say, or it could be that they see I'm right and they're wrong and just run away!

Of course I would like to think that the last option is most likely, but who really knows? When I am debating at other people's sites I like to leave a closing statement and that's what I would prefer here too (to be fair Richard has done that a couple of times). Something like "we have a different underlying philosophy and we will never agree so let's just finish the debate now" or "you refuse to accept the facts which I have shown you so I give up" or even "you suck... goodbye!"

Look at the debate with Linuxgal about global warming denialism for example (the blog entry titled "Be Skeptical of Yourself", number 1655 on 2014-05-29). I asked her to view the Wikipedia page on the consensus on the cause of global warming and that's where the debate ended, probably because continuing to deny it at that point would have looked quite unreasonable.

But should she not have said "oh, I see the consensus is stronger than I thought, maybe you are right, I won't accept your view immediately but I will think about it some more". Or maybe she could have stuck with the conspiracy and said "Wikipedia reflects the mainstream view and cannot be trusted". Of course, at that point I would have referred her to Wikipedia's sources so the conspiracy would then need to be abandoned or expanded even more.

But no, she just stopped talking and, I suspect, stopped thinking too. I would be surprised if she changed her mind at all because if she is a libertarian (as I suspect) she would be stuck with a particular narrative which is based on ideology rather than facts.

But could I be accused of the same thing? Is there anything where I have changed my mind as a result of an opponent's well made points? Well yes, actually. Let me give some examples...

Quite a few years back I criticised the Catholic Church and commented on how it wasn't surprising it was losing members around the world. A commenter pointed out that this wasn't true: the Church was actually either gaining membership or staying about the same (depending on your source). I had seen diminishing support in the western world but forgotten about the gains made in places like South America and Africa. Fair enough, I admitted I was wrong and was more careful about making that sort of comment in the future.

Another bigger issue involved the historicity of Jesus. I always believed that the Jesus stories in the New Testament were basically 100% made up and that Jesus didn't exist at all. But there is more nuance to this issue: it's not just black and white, or existed or didn't exist.

When a commenter suggested I look at the consensus opinions of historians on the subject I did and found that the vast majority think there was an historical Jesus. Of course most don't believe all the supernatural nonsense that goes along with the story about what might be a real figure, and that's where the nuance comes in.

The same applies to many historical figures: our generally accepted narrative probably involves a real person with some real history but also with a lot of grossly exaggerated and outright false additional material. Two often quoted figures in this category are Hannibal and Socrates.

So my opinion now is that the Bible stories about Jesus are probably based on a real person (or several people) but that most of the details can't be taken seriously. That is a change of opinion which I have made and conceded in the discussion.

No one will become better informed unless they accept their errors. Libertarians and Christians both claim that they are following a true and right course for the best outcome for everyone: either through following a free and open market or by following a true and loving god. But if both of those concepts aren't true shouldn't they accept that and move on? It's still possible to encourage free markets or a spiritual view of the world, but have it based on facts instead of fantasy.

But that just doesn't seem to happen because my opponents never change.

Comment 1 (3975) by Richard on 2014-06-04 at 17:38:09:

Hi there. Couldn't not respond huh! Firstly, as for possible explanations for suddenly stopping responding. Personally, I have found that ALL the options you listed in p3 have specifically applied for me at one time or another, with the exception of the last.

I haven't (to date) finished by 'seeing you are right' and 'I am wrong' and just 'ran away'. :)

I have often thought you should (as blog owner) have the last say, and usually stick to that even when your last statement is constructed in a way that is probably intended to provoke a rebuttal (perhaps so that when none comes, it conveniently 'looks like' running away). I have also often got 'busy with other stuff'.

In general, the principle for me is nothing more than 'I am not here to try to convince you (however long it takes). Once a response is offered in response to a topic you have started or a claim you have made, there is simply no need to just pound the podium again. What you do with that thought or rebuttal is entirely up to you.

However, it is also my sincere belief, that simply because I haven't yet completely reversed my opinion on a topic of discussion this does not a) preclude this from happening in the future. AND b) that if it does, I would hope to be honest and reasonable enough to finish by fairly acknowledging that and thanking you for the assistance!

As for your claim to doing that yourself - I commend you sincerely. As for the specific qn of whether Jesus existed or not tho' - that IS a Black and White issue - as there are no other options open to us - either He did or He didn't.

So, while I commend the ideal you claimed i.e. 'changing your mind and acknowledging it openly', to actually claim a 'mind reversal' on that qn using quotes like 'the Bible stories about Jesus are probably based on a real person (or several people)' and the 'supernatural nonsense that goes along with what might be a real figure' is a bit of a stretch don't you think. That's a pretty heavily qualified 'change of mind' imo! ;-)
But hey good on you for even that - don't get me wrong.

It's not the fact that the 'vast majority of historians think there was a historical Jesus' that of itself should make the case at all - the vast majority might well be wrong! What should influence us is what reasons do all those historians provide for their opinion, such that you can make up your own mind with more certainty. 'Reasons' are far more likely to keep a discussion going, than simply expressing opinions.

Cheers,
Rich.

Comment 2 (3978) by OJB on 2014-06-05 at 13:17:41:

You have failed to see I am right, huh? Well, your loss... :)

I disagree regarding Jesus existing or not. We have a series of stories about a person. The question is how closely do they match a real person or people? Clearly there are other options apart from "not at all" and "perfectly". For example, if someone existed who said a lot of the things Jesus is reputed to have said but had no supernatural power and wasn't the son of God, etc. Is he still Jesus?

I agree reasons are more important than consensus but unfortunately the subtleties and complexities involved with those reasons tend to be beyond non-experts. I think it is reasonable to accept the experts' options unless there is a really good reason not to.

By the way, I find the reasons the experts accept the historicity of Jesus to be quite absurd which is why I originally rejected his existence totally, but I accept expert opinion in other areas I am not an expert in - climate change, evolution, etc - so I really should be consistent and accept it in this area too.

Of course I am always open to looking at new evidence.

Comment 3 (3980) by richard on 2014-06-05 at 16:26:31:

Just to avoid any charge of non responsiveness ;) I do agree with you there are lots of possible positions re the overall historical accuracy, that fit between 'not at all' and 'perfectly'. I was just pointing out that perhaps your claim to a 'change of heart', wasn't really as significant as you suggest.

Perhaps it is more correct to say there are lots of separate 'claims' about the historicity of Jesus (for example), each of which have discrete (true or false) answers. Each question/historical event/story must be examined carefully on its own merits. Indeed some may be extremely difficult to come to an obvious conclusion on. On the one specific qn of 'Did Jesus exist' however, this isn't the case. The evidence used by all those historians is extremely powerful and hard to ignore, and I just thought your use of this as a shining example of your ability to change your mind, wasn't that obvious, given the particular phrasing you used. But I will repeat that I admire the sentiment in the post, and I too always hope to aspire to it, and to look at all new evidence! So, final comment: Nice post! :-)

Comment 4 (3984) by OJB on 2014-06-05 at 21:47:18:

I would have thought that an atheist deciding that he thinks Jesus existed is a fairly significant event!

I don't think any story about the past with a significant degree of complexity can be simply classified as true or false, because there will always be errors and inaccuracies involved. So my original point about a true/false answer being meaningless stands. But I think we agree on this.

Maybe we should put a percentage on this. I think the NT story about Jesus (which one?) is about 30% accurate. I'm guessing you would claim a higher number!

You can leave comments about this entry using this form.

To add a comment: enter a name and email (both optional), type the number shown above, enter a comment, then click Add.
Note that you can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous.
Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies and updates to this entry.
The comment should appear immediately because the authorisation system is currently inactive.