[quote=thedoc post_id=203834 time=1431972626 user_id=8079]
[quote="duszek"]How many Catholics have read the whole Bible ? :lol:
[b]But we know the most important stories, yes.[/b][/quote]
Somewhere I made a comparison, Jesus taught is parables, Aesop wrote fables, almost all cultures have Mythology, and we have the old testament, and other sacred writings from various religions, I would suggest that they all be read the same way and in the same light. None of them are science or history, and none of them are intended to be factually true, but they are true in the meaning and the lesson they teach.
[/quote]
Until Very recently, history was never expected to be accurate. It was a story and leaders rewrote it at will.
Do atheists read the primary sources?
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
>I also understand some atheists get their panties in a twist about god (and god belief), but this is, to me, nutty. Seems to me: if the god believer isn't takin' food off your table, money out of your pocket, or shingles from the roof over your head, then it's probably best to just let them be and -- again -- go about one's business.
Not that voting is meaningful but just as an example; every time two religious nuts vote, your food, money, and shingles are affected twice as much as what you can. Truth can ONLY lose in compromise.
Not that voting is meaningful but just as an example; every time two religious nuts vote, your food, money, and shingles are affected twice as much as what you can. Truth can ONLY lose in compromise.
-
Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27624
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
A lot of people think that. "History is a story written by the winners," they say. But this is actually itself a myth, a bit of an expression of postmodernist mendacity. It's a case of a less-than-half-truth becoming a common belief.
History unanchored entirely from facts is actually pretty rare, and is always highly implausible. Stories of Atlantis are something like that, and maybe fit that bill. History premised on selective facts is more common, but the fewer facts it employs the more assailable it is by counter-evidence. So it only makes a strong story if the people hearing it are asleep at the wheel. History premised on many facts, but with a final interpretive twist is more common still, and is the thing postmodern critics are always talking about. And that final twist is a problem, but since a multitude of facts are already in evidence, it opens the way for historical debate, critique and revision, so that history can become a self-improving discipline. The means for progressively correcting the fault are within the discipline of history itself.
And that's the best history gets. In this fallible world, history will always be in need of reform and improvement; but the direction of the whole project can be toward greater truth, if people are willing to discipline themselves to the task of continually searching out facts and revising interpretations. But it's not bad. Better to recognize one's own fallibility and discipline one's errors to the facts as they emerge.
It's far better than what the postmodern historicists exhort us to imagine, which is that all history is a mere matter of interpretation devoid of solid facts. For if what they say is true, then it's not even a critique: after all, if ALL history is partisan bunk, then what's wrong with generating partisan bunk? It's the only thing that's even POSSIBLE, then.
Ironically, postmodernism is itself a false historical narrative. It's the child's story of how "oppressors" ruled the landscape until the advent of postmodern skepticism, at which time the truth was finally unveiled -- that all narratives are merely fictions of power, designed to serve particular interests....except, of course, postmodernism itself, which is still asserted, with utter dogmatic certainty, to be the truth about how things really are.
For the human race, traditional historiography (while not a practice devoid of perils, of course) is far safer than postmodernism. Traditional historiography has some discipline and correctives. Postmodern critical theory has nothing but ideology and power games.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
[quote="Immanuel Can" post_id=473804 time=1601477943 user_id=9431]
[quote=Advocate post_id=473798 time=1601476495 user_id=15238]
Until Very recently, history was never expected to be accurate. It was a story and leaders rewrote it at will.
[/quote]
A lot of people think that. "History is a story written by the winners," they say. But this is actually [i]itself[/i] a myth, a bit of an expression of postmodernist mendacity. It's a case of a less-than-half-truth becoming a common belief.
[i]History unanchored entirely from facts[/i] is actually pretty rare, and is always highly implausible. Stories of Atlantis are something like that, and maybe fit that bill. [i]History premised on selective facts[/i] is more common, but the fewer facts it employs the more assailable it is by counter-evidence. So it only makes a strong story if the people hearing it are asleep at the wheel. [i]History premised on many facts,[/i] but with a final interpretive twist is more common still, and is the thing postmodern critics are always talking about. And that final twist is a problem, but since a multitude of facts are already in evidence, it opens the way for historical debate, critique and revision, so that history can become a self-improving discipline. The means for progressively correcting the fault are within the discipline of history itself.
And that's the best history gets. In this fallible world, history will always be in need of reform and improvement; but the direction of the whole project can be toward greater truth, if people are willing to discipline themselves to the task of continually searching out facts and revising interpretations. But it's not bad. Better to recognize one's own fallibility and discipline one's errors to the facts as they emerge.
It's far better than what the postmodern historicists exhort us to imagine, which is that all history is a [i]mere[/i] matter of interpretation[i] devoid of[/i] solid facts. For if what they say is true, then it's not even a critique: after all, if ALL history is partisan bunk, then what's wrong with generating partisan bunk? It's the only thing that's even POSSIBLE, then.
Ironically, postmodernism is itself a false historical narrative. It's the child's story of how "oppressors" ruled the landscape until the advent of postmodern skepticism, at which time the truth was finally unveiled -- that all narratives are merely fictions of power, designed to serve particular interests....except, of course, postmodernism itself, which is still asserted, with utter dogmatic certainty, to be the truth about how things really are.
For the human race, traditional historiography (while not a practice devoid of perils, of course) is far safer than postmodernism. Traditional historiography has some discipline and correctives. Postmodern critical theory has nothing but ideology and power games.
[/quote]
Eh? Well, that went a completely different direction. In olden times, before science was understood as rigor, yes, there was a kernel of truth in every story, but it could only be known by cross-referencing and understanding empirical data, neither of which were normally done. I think we're talking at cross-purposes.
History isn't Always and Entirely written by the winners, but mostly so, and that was increasingly the case the further back you go, with smaller groups, where the losers often lost their entire civilization, not merely their lives.
[quote=Advocate post_id=473798 time=1601476495 user_id=15238]
Until Very recently, history was never expected to be accurate. It was a story and leaders rewrote it at will.
[/quote]
A lot of people think that. "History is a story written by the winners," they say. But this is actually [i]itself[/i] a myth, a bit of an expression of postmodernist mendacity. It's a case of a less-than-half-truth becoming a common belief.
[i]History unanchored entirely from facts[/i] is actually pretty rare, and is always highly implausible. Stories of Atlantis are something like that, and maybe fit that bill. [i]History premised on selective facts[/i] is more common, but the fewer facts it employs the more assailable it is by counter-evidence. So it only makes a strong story if the people hearing it are asleep at the wheel. [i]History premised on many facts,[/i] but with a final interpretive twist is more common still, and is the thing postmodern critics are always talking about. And that final twist is a problem, but since a multitude of facts are already in evidence, it opens the way for historical debate, critique and revision, so that history can become a self-improving discipline. The means for progressively correcting the fault are within the discipline of history itself.
And that's the best history gets. In this fallible world, history will always be in need of reform and improvement; but the direction of the whole project can be toward greater truth, if people are willing to discipline themselves to the task of continually searching out facts and revising interpretations. But it's not bad. Better to recognize one's own fallibility and discipline one's errors to the facts as they emerge.
It's far better than what the postmodern historicists exhort us to imagine, which is that all history is a [i]mere[/i] matter of interpretation[i] devoid of[/i] solid facts. For if what they say is true, then it's not even a critique: after all, if ALL history is partisan bunk, then what's wrong with generating partisan bunk? It's the only thing that's even POSSIBLE, then.
Ironically, postmodernism is itself a false historical narrative. It's the child's story of how "oppressors" ruled the landscape until the advent of postmodern skepticism, at which time the truth was finally unveiled -- that all narratives are merely fictions of power, designed to serve particular interests....except, of course, postmodernism itself, which is still asserted, with utter dogmatic certainty, to be the truth about how things really are.
For the human race, traditional historiography (while not a practice devoid of perils, of course) is far safer than postmodernism. Traditional historiography has some discipline and correctives. Postmodern critical theory has nothing but ideology and power games.
[/quote]
Eh? Well, that went a completely different direction. In olden times, before science was understood as rigor, yes, there was a kernel of truth in every story, but it could only be known by cross-referencing and understanding empirical data, neither of which were normally done. I think we're talking at cross-purposes.
History isn't Always and Entirely written by the winners, but mostly so, and that was increasingly the case the further back you go, with smaller groups, where the losers often lost their entire civilization, not merely their lives.
-
Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27624
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
What are these "olden times" of which you speak? Postmodernism hasn't really been a thing before, perhaps, the 1960s. That's not so "olden," and there was lots of good history written by the '60s.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 4:15 pm Eh? Well, that went a completely different direction. In olden times, before science was understood as rigor, yes, there was a kernel of truth in every story, but it could only be known by cross-referencing and understanding empirical data, neither of which were normally done. I think we're talking at cross-purposes.
You're right about how ancient history has often gone; but after the early modern period, so much knowledge and evidence has been collected that our base of information for reforming our historical accounts is actually very impressive...and more so as we got into the late modern period. Nowadays, we're afloat in data, and our only problem is how to process having too much historical information, not too little.
No, that's too far to suppose. The more facts came into evidence, the better our history became...not perfect, of course, but better. We lost all that when we knelt at the altar of postmodern historicism, where we dropped our compass, and lost even the means to point to truth.History isn't Always and Entirely written by the winners, but mostly so,
Oddly enough, this was sold to us by the postmodern as a "more truthful" way to proceed. But as usual, they lied. All they wanted was to obtain freedom from facts, so they could make of history whatever they wanted. And that's what they've done ever since. The "history" we're now told to believe in by them is that simple-minded story of oppressors and victims. But any collocation of facts reveals that story as dishonest, stupid and childish; so that that point, they go back to insisting there are no facts and no truth anyway.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
>What are these "olden times" of which you speak? Postmodernism hasn't really been a thing since, perhaps, the 1960s. That's not so "olden," and there was lots of good history written by the '60s.
Sometime in the last few hundred years anyhow. Enlightement values were largely ignored afterward, but eventually accepted and expanded in meaningful ways.
>Nowadays, we're afloat in data, and our only problem is how to process having [i]too much[/i] historical information, not too little.
Not only that, there's the infinite regress problem. How do i know which website I've heard of to trust to tell me which other websites i haven't heard of to trust. It's also why as soon as facts or statistics come into the argument, it's a wash. Epistemological warrant does not apply to the internet. :( I've given up half as many searches as Iive started. So much for remaining informed and relevant.
>[quote]History isn't Always and Entirely written by the winners, but mostly so,[/quote]
No, that's too far to suppose. The more facts came into evidence, the better our history became...not perfect, of course, but better. We lost all that when we knelt at the altar of postmodern historicism, where we dropped our compass, and lost even the means to point to truth.
That's New history. I'm talking about the accumulated body of information. We can never go beyond some specific point without falling back on logical necessity because the empirical facts can never be known. Early on, only the most privileged even had access to writing, and even if they were attempting to be accurate, it's mostly gone anyhow. That was only 6000 years ago; the blink of an eye.
And as for the modem sense, history gets written before it happens by convincing people of false values and context at minimum. :/ All news is now fake news by way of emphasis if not insufficient fact-checking (or none at all).
I'll leave off the postmodernists. I agree with you except to say, they're right in theory but they understand and balance their ideology in moronic and counterproductive ways because to the extent they're right, they're right on accident. They don't understand evidence at all.
Sometime in the last few hundred years anyhow. Enlightement values were largely ignored afterward, but eventually accepted and expanded in meaningful ways.
>Nowadays, we're afloat in data, and our only problem is how to process having [i]too much[/i] historical information, not too little.
Not only that, there's the infinite regress problem. How do i know which website I've heard of to trust to tell me which other websites i haven't heard of to trust. It's also why as soon as facts or statistics come into the argument, it's a wash. Epistemological warrant does not apply to the internet. :( I've given up half as many searches as Iive started. So much for remaining informed and relevant.
>[quote]History isn't Always and Entirely written by the winners, but mostly so,[/quote]
No, that's too far to suppose. The more facts came into evidence, the better our history became...not perfect, of course, but better. We lost all that when we knelt at the altar of postmodern historicism, where we dropped our compass, and lost even the means to point to truth.
That's New history. I'm talking about the accumulated body of information. We can never go beyond some specific point without falling back on logical necessity because the empirical facts can never be known. Early on, only the most privileged even had access to writing, and even if they were attempting to be accurate, it's mostly gone anyhow. That was only 6000 years ago; the blink of an eye.
And as for the modem sense, history gets written before it happens by convincing people of false values and context at minimum. :/ All news is now fake news by way of emphasis if not insufficient fact-checking (or none at all).
I'll leave off the postmodernists. I agree with you except to say, they're right in theory but they understand and balance their ideology in moronic and counterproductive ways because to the extent they're right, they're right on accident. They don't understand evidence at all.
-
Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27624
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
No, no...that's not true. We know a lot about history prior to the Scientific Revolution, though even more afterward. Some historians may argue over the impact of the Renaissance, for example; but nobody's arguing over the existence of the Renaissance.
As it was with books, there are better and worse sources, of course. Academic, peer-reviewed and independent sources are generally more reliable than common folk, single-writer and partisan sites. But that's a problem of riches, not of poverty of data.Not only that, there's the infinite regress problem. How do i know which website I've heard of to trust to tell me which other websites i haven't heard of to trust. It's also why as soon as facts or statistics come into the argument, it's a wash. Epistemological warrant does not apply to the internet.>Nowadays, we're afloat in data, and our only problem is how to process having too much historical information, not too little.I've given up half as many searches as Iive started. So much for remaining informed and relevant.
Is that claim an empirical fact? If so, you claim it "can never be known"? So should I believe you? Why?the empirical facts can never be known.
This is also a postmodern phenomenon. It's not how things have always been.history gets written before it happens by convincing people of false values and context at minimum. :/ All news is now fake news by way of emphasis if not insufficient fact-checking (or none at all).
Actually, they're wrong starting from theory upwards.I'll leave off the postmodernists. I agree with you except to say, they're right in theory...
What I'll give them is this: that we are wise to be critical and questioning of history.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
>No, no...that's not true. We know a lot about history prior to the Scientific Revolution, though even more afterward. Some historians may argue over the [i]impact[/i] of the Renaissance, for example; but nobody's arguing over the [i]existence [/i]of the Renaissance.
The broad strokes may still be correct while filled in with a bunch of misleading lies. The larger point is that it's not always possible to know which is which, and you don't have to go far back to start encountering that problem. Accurate information simply wasn't recorded through most of history, in most places, at most scales of understanding, in most subjects; much of what was is lost, and the certainty we accept based on historical information is a patchwork
>As it was with books, there are better and worse sources, of course. Academic, peer-reviewed and independent sources are generally more reliable than common folk, single-writer and partisan sites. But that's a problem of riches, not of poverty of data.
Just like books, except exponentially harder.
>>[quote]the empirical facts can never be known.[/quote]
>Is that claim an empirical fact? If so, you claim it "can never be known"? So should I believe you? Why?
Because you understand we find a fossil now and then but we've got most of what there is to get and what's left is a remix recipe. People have been collecting information a lot longer than people have been trying to curate/collate it with an eye toward representative accuracy. Even the truest tale won't be the same tomorrow as the zeitgeist, metaphors, and implications continually shift. You should believe me because i present a prima facie case and you can't refute it. :p
>Actually, they're wrong starting from theory upwards.
Nope. Everything is subjective. Even facts are subjective because they don't exist independently of salience, perspective, and priority. Even if everyone agrees it's "true", that's going to have a different meaning, and thus produce different results in many cases. Questions of knowledge make sense by interpreting it as "justified belief". Two perspectives of the same thing/event can be equally justified to validate diametrically opposed understandings, which only means someone has better or more complete information, not that someone is wrong.
Ok. Everything Else they say is wrong. :p
The broad strokes may still be correct while filled in with a bunch of misleading lies. The larger point is that it's not always possible to know which is which, and you don't have to go far back to start encountering that problem. Accurate information simply wasn't recorded through most of history, in most places, at most scales of understanding, in most subjects; much of what was is lost, and the certainty we accept based on historical information is a patchwork
>As it was with books, there are better and worse sources, of course. Academic, peer-reviewed and independent sources are generally more reliable than common folk, single-writer and partisan sites. But that's a problem of riches, not of poverty of data.
Just like books, except exponentially harder.
>>[quote]the empirical facts can never be known.[/quote]
>Is that claim an empirical fact? If so, you claim it "can never be known"? So should I believe you? Why?
Because you understand we find a fossil now and then but we've got most of what there is to get and what's left is a remix recipe. People have been collecting information a lot longer than people have been trying to curate/collate it with an eye toward representative accuracy. Even the truest tale won't be the same tomorrow as the zeitgeist, metaphors, and implications continually shift. You should believe me because i present a prima facie case and you can't refute it. :p
>Actually, they're wrong starting from theory upwards.
Nope. Everything is subjective. Even facts are subjective because they don't exist independently of salience, perspective, and priority. Even if everyone agrees it's "true", that's going to have a different meaning, and thus produce different results in many cases. Questions of knowledge make sense by interpreting it as "justified belief". Two perspectives of the same thing/event can be equally justified to validate diametrically opposed understandings, which only means someone has better or more complete information, not that someone is wrong.
Ok. Everything Else they say is wrong. :p
-
Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27624
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Yeah, but often it is. Nobody said history had to be a perfect process to be a very good process or an improvable process.Advocate wrote: ↑Wed Sep 30, 2020 6:12 pmThe broad strokes may still be correct while filled in with a bunch of misleading lies. The larger point is that it's not always possible to know which is which....>No, no...that's not true. We know a lot about history prior to the Scientific Revolution, though even more afterward. Some historians may argue over the impact of the Renaissance, for example; but nobody's arguing over the existence of the Renaissance.
Because you understand we find a fossil now and then but we've got most of what there is to get and what's left is a remix recipe.>>>Is that claim an empirical fact? If so, you claim it "can never be known"? So should I believe you? Why?the empirical facts can never be known.
If "history" was only a matter of ancient archaeology, you'd be right. But it's not. We have many cases of first-hand eye-witness accounts, even in ancient history; and we have far better data as time goes forward from there.
Au contraire, if I were to believe your claim above, I should disbelieve you, for two reasons: one, because somebody said something is never good enough reason to believe you, and two, because you told me "empirical facts can never be known." So you have no empirical facts to back up the claim that "empirical facts can never be known."You should believe me because i present a prima facie case and you can't refute it.
Meanwhile, I do have the very strong impression that I know some empirical facts. So the burden's on you to justify your claim...which you cannot, because you denied your own access to evidence.
Additionally, if somehow, without any empirical evidence being involved, you DO prove something to me, you've defeated the claim that "empirical facts can never be known." You have proved you know something, and that I do as well, consequently.In other words, if you stick to your original claim above, you've self-refuted. I didn't need to do anything.
Then that statement is also subjective. So why should it be taken seriously?>Actually, they're wrong starting from theory upwards.
Nope. Everything is subjective.
Two perspectives of the same thing/event can be equally justified to validate diametrically opposed understandings, which only means someone has better or more complete information, not that someone is wrong.
It means that one is closer to truth than the other, and one should be regarded as an inferior "perspective." And that's what I've been saying: history is not a perfect process...but it can be, and ought to be, a corrigible one.
Re: Do atheists read the primary sources?
Atheist here.
there are no primary sources (I assume you are Western centric and so talking about the "Bible") - the same for all the other Religions too of course.
the oldest work is Amos, which dates to 800 bc, after that is Genesis, the oldest text dates to 200 BC - via Kumran(sp) - that is 600 yrs after what is thought to be when the original oral myth (which is thought to date 400 yrs earlier 1200 bc - much was barrowed from earlier Akkaidan and Summarian myths that date a millia earlier) was written down. those texts were probably in the 1st temple, sadly Nebbacanzer burned it down in 587 bc, so we will never know if the 1st temple had such "original works" in it or not.
to sum up, there is no longer a "primal work" not for the OT nor the NT, there are works that date centuries later than what they were based upon.
copies of copies of copies of copies.
literally.
there are no primary sources (I assume you are Western centric and so talking about the "Bible") - the same for all the other Religions too of course.
the oldest work is Amos, which dates to 800 bc, after that is Genesis, the oldest text dates to 200 BC - via Kumran(sp) - that is 600 yrs after what is thought to be when the original oral myth (which is thought to date 400 yrs earlier 1200 bc - much was barrowed from earlier Akkaidan and Summarian myths that date a millia earlier) was written down. those texts were probably in the 1st temple, sadly Nebbacanzer burned it down in 587 bc, so we will never know if the 1st temple had such "original works" in it or not.
to sum up, there is no longer a "primal work" not for the OT nor the NT, there are works that date centuries later than what they were based upon.
copies of copies of copies of copies.
literally.