steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jul 9, 2008 9:11:05 GMT -8
Hi everyone,
I'm reading a book from a chronologist and historian, Heribert Illig, who claims that the years between September 614 and August 911 never actually took place. He said that it was either the product of a conspiracy or a terrible miscalculation, and people like Charlemagne never actually existed. It would also imply that we are really living in the year 1705 In English, the theory is called the Phantom Time theory. For you Germans out there, it is called "Das Erfundene Mittelalter". I haven't finished the book, and so I can't say yet if it's a crackpot theory. Google it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 9, 2008 10:12:33 GMT -8
how reputable is the author? i can't imagine what kind of evidence would be needed to establish this.
doesn't the christian reckoning of years go back to like the 6th century or so? in other words, before the time period in question?
|
|
steve
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 93
|
Post by steve on Jul 9, 2008 13:03:25 GMT -8
The author was, to my knowledge, quite reputable before he proposed this theory. He has been branded a quack by some other famous German Historians. However, it was later discovered that they had not read his book or even explored the theory.
As far as the Christian reckoning of years, I don't know. He seems to be suggesting that the church was part of this great blooper or plot.
It is interesting that he is proposing that the dark ages are dark simply because they never existed. Historians had dubbed the early middle ages before the crusades as the dark ages because they yield either riddles, or legends. Many sources contradict or don't add up.
Just for the record, I don't believe him. Not yet. I'm still reading and waiting for the really big evidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 13, 2008 8:06:10 GMT -8
Couldn't you just cross reference other calendars (like the Islamic, or Chinese) to determine whether we're missing years? If the history is missing, shouldn't it be missing from theirs as well?
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 13, 2008 8:25:44 GMT -8
I'm glad you see this is a valuable tool... that will come in handy when I use it to demonstrate that the world is more than 6,000 years old
hehehehehehe wha wha wha wha wha
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 13, 2008 20:32:16 GMT -8
Go for it man....I can be won over. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 15, 2008 1:21:22 GMT -8
how reputable is the author? i can't imagine what kind of evidence would be needed to establish this. The author was, to my knowledge, quite reputable before he proposed this theory. Just for the record, I don't believe him. Not yet. I'm still reading and waiting for the really big evidence. Hey Guys, It's me again! When I read this thread something suddenly occured to me: Both of you are questioning the reliability of the author presenting such strange a theory. Steve points out that he is reputable and in the same post states that he doesn't believe him. Really big evidence is required. I'm sure you're already smelling what I'm cooking. This theory sounds strange and you don't believe it without questioning the authors reliabilty first. And even if he's reliable you don't believe it until you've seen really big evidence. Yet, everything the Bible says is much stranger*. And you believe it without knowing the authors. How's that possible? A probable reply would be: we've seen the really big evidence! Okay. But then I would ask you why you haven't shown the really big evidence to me in all our discussions? I have an intuition, that non of you would ever believe a word of what the Bible says if you were presented with it's claims for the first time in your life today.** Before you reply to this one, I think you should critically question yourselves. Why do you believe in an ancient random collection of scripture of numberous unknown authors that on top of it make a lot of claims which totally contradict your daily-life-experiences***? While at the same time you are skeptical of a contemporary, supposedly reputable author making claims that are far less unprobable? Please take your time to think about it. *I'm talking about miracles here. It's much harder to believe in physical, chemical, biological (etc.) impossebilities than to believe that documents about the past have been faked, wouldn't you agree? **You don't need to remind me that this is hypothetical. Think about it anyway! *** I assume that you never experienced a real miracle because you never told me about it. With "real miracle" I mean something that can't be explained away rationally even if probability speaks against it. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 15, 2008 12:00:03 GMT -8
Mo, some good thoughts here. Growing up under the influence of both Christians and an atheist grandfather to whom I was very close, I often asked these kinds of questions of mine own faith and others around me. It really used to bother me (and still does often) that more Christians don't have these thoughts more frequently than they do. I think they're healthy thoughts in that they encourage fresh perspective, a dogged quest for truth, and a reminder toward humility. I definitely think that an authors reliability (in this case or in regard to the Bible) is an important facet to investigate, as well as "big evidence". And there is "big evidence" in my opinion, but perhaps we need to talk simply about evidence without putting a value-judgment on how "big", "compelling", or "powerful" it is, because there is a decidedly subject aspect to such judgments. Maybe I should focus on telling you what is "compelling evidence" for me. And that is basically the backbone of how I've set up the Questions about Christianity sub-forum. So, the more we dig into stuff on here, the more "evidence" we can sift. Others in the online community who identify themselves as Christians may share in common with me some evidences that they think are compelling. They may have additional ones too. So this is the place to weigh all that. You can bet that the ones I've spent the most time on there (historical jesus/ evidence for the resurrection, predictive prophecy, and certain aspects of science) are the biggies for me. I'd have to throw in philosophical arguments as a close second. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 16, 2008 13:42:54 GMT -8
Mo, doesn't this statement imply that all of us who identify ourselves as christians have been christians since childhood?
I'd love to hear the input of those of you (Chris, Brian, for example) who came to christian faith as an adult.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 18, 2008 5:53:28 GMT -8
Mo, doesn't this statement imply that all of us who identify ourselves as christians have been christians since childhood? I'd love to hear the input of those of you (Chris, Brian, for example) who came to christian faith as an adult. Chris' or Brian's input is only of interest here, if they have been raised completely isolated from the Western world and have heard of Christianity for the first time in their lives as adults who have learned to take differentiated and critical perspectives on things. Growing up in the USA or Germany you can't escape Christianity. Even if you don't believe it, you have heard of it. You've grown up knowing the story of Jesus in basics and hence it already doesn't sound as outlandish to you as it must sound to any reasonable person who hears of it for the first time in his life. The statement you quoted is hypothetical. It's directed at you (Josh) and Steve. You who are (reasonably) skeptic of an apparently strange claim made by an apparently well accepted historian. How much more skeptical would you have been towards the bible if you had not grown up in a Christian society? If you had heard the story for the first time right now? You would ask yourself: are the sources reliable? And conclude, that you barely know anything about the authors. Hypothetical as all this might be, I'd bet you wouldn't believe a single word of that book. NO reasonable person would. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 19, 2008 21:57:08 GMT -8
Well, I think their input is definitely of interest to me in regard to this-- and certainly not to be dismissed for what it's worth.
In the meantime, I'll try and dig up a "testimony" that fits your narrow definitions (maybe an ex-communist Chinese convert or something, which ought to be pretty easy ;D)
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 20, 2008 2:59:32 GMT -8
Well, I think their input is definitely of interest to me in regard to this-- and certainly not to be dismissed for what it's worth. Fine, but please have them testify in another thread cause since their story apparently doesn't fit into my "narrow definitions", it would only dilute what is important. In the meantime, I'll try and dig up a "testimony" that fits your narrow definitions (maybe an ex-communist Chinese convert or something, which ought to be pretty easy ;D) You're not gonna escape so easily, my friend. ;D We're not talking about Chris or Brian or an ex-communist Chinese here. We are talking about you and Steve. The statement I made was hypothetical. There won't be an answer. The reason why I feel YOU wouldn't believe the Bible if you heard of it for the first time today is, that you prove to be critical with any other source. You don't believe the thesis of the missing 297 years. And yet this thesis is a zillion times more likely than the Biblical claims. So what does that tell us about you? I think the explanation is quite obvious: You have been raised in a Christian country. There's a lot of people who believe this crazy story and so it doesn't seem that absurd from the very beginning. We all can't understand how Hindus could ever believe the flapdoodle they happen to believe in. Why believe in Christanity? Because it's less flapdoodlish?? NO! If a new religion arisies with equally silly claims, you wouldn't buy it, would you? Let's take the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Did you buy that? Well, the FSM is obviously nothing but parody of the intelligent design movement. But it's claims are in no way less outlandish. Why aren't you a pastafarian? Why a Christian? Because the evidence bears Christianity out? Hm, that's what you'll say. But maybe here's the real reason: A little statistic for you*: religious affiliation of: - Spain: 99% Christian (all of them Catholic) - USA: 80% Christian - Germany: 82% Christian - Israel: 82% Jewish - Japan 84% Buddhist/ Shintoist - Nepal: 90% Hindu - India: 80,5% Hindu - Iran: 99% Muslim - Turkey: 99,8% Muslim - China: 97% without religion (we're not gonna rely on that). Now, what does all that mean to you? You're not gonna tell me that you don't see the most obvious correlation between where you are born and what you believe? * Source: msn encarta. The exact numbers might differ from source to source but the essential aspect, namely the majority of certain religious groups in certain parts of the world stays the same. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 20, 2008 19:46:06 GMT -8
Mo, your point is granted, if it is, as a paraphrase, that it is easier to believe something strange when you are introduced to it in palpable stages. That's a reasonable caution when accepting any belief, and one which the Christian apologist must be aware of and attempt to counter-balance to some degree with objectivity. Still, it rubs both ways. There are plenty of things that a person in their lifetime (especially as a child) would influence them against belief. Yet people on both sides of the fence (influence for and against belief) often end up choosing to believe something contrary to their upbringing or early influences. Many parts of the Bible- not least the central event (the Resurrection) are strange. But one of the biggest evidences IMO for the truth of the faith is the reliability of the authors in their claims about the resurrection of Christ. That's a huge subject, which I'm sure we'll get into more. But, suffice to say for now, just as in the case above, reliability and evidence are important to consider. BTW, what exactly do you mean by us "not knowing the authors"- you mean, like who they are, or detailed information about them? One difference, however, might be the consequences of the belief. It really doesn't affect my existence, purpose, and meaning in life if there are a missing 297 years. But with the gospel, the stakes are higher and deserve a deeper, more concetrated look. Well, I've gotten to about 1/2 of it in our discussions and there's more to come. But evidence is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. The source of morality is a big one for me. I think the preponderance of the evidence points in favor of a real right and wrong that can only be ultimately traced to God. But there are pieces of the puzzle from science that are "big" to me- ie, a finite beginning to the universe narrows down a lot of possibilities in beliefs systems singlehandedly. There's a lot more on science that I'm sure we'll get into again. Predictive prophecy is another- again, we can get into that. Evidence for the Resurrection and other elements of the New Testament, that's big as well. Less useful for debate, but important to me, in it's place, is personal experience. But I know that can be doubted easily by others. So, how about when we are discussing something I think is BIG to me, I'll just put up a little red flag so you know  Here you act as if I have not been/ am not ever skeptical of the bible, but am deeply skeptical of this author. I'd like to characterize myself as equally skeptical*. It's just I have more experience working through that skepticism with Christianity. That's all I have time to respond to tonight. More later? *or rather, I am more skeptical of Christianity in some ways and less so in others, mainly having to do with, as I said above, the vast difference in import of both claims. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 20, 2008 19:51:35 GMT -8
One more thing I can't resist:
Apparently we don't share the same view of Hinduism. I disagree with a lot of it- I agree with some of it- I think some ideas generated under the heading of Hinduism have been horrible and some of them sublime, but I don't really think of most of it as "crazy" or "flapdoodlish". I guess I have just a lot more basic respect (because of philosophy) for theism or supernaturalism in any stripe that you do.
|
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 21, 2008 4:08:24 GMT -8
Mo, your point is granted, if it is, as a paraphrase, that it is easier to believe something strange when you are introduced to it in palpable stages. This is one aspect of the point I was making. But the whole point is much stronger. Believing in something strange is one thing. Having a specific Religion is another thing. The fact that you consider Christianity to be compelling as compared with other belief systems is MOST PROBABLY connected to the fact that you were born into the USA of the 20th century. Had you been born at the same place 500 years earlier you would have believed in “Manitou” or whatever Native Americans happened to believe in. If you were born at the same time in Turkey, you would have been a Muslim with a probability of 99%. What you believe, what you find compelling, is totally random. I have a Muslim friend telling me all the time about all the evidence for Islam. He’s Pakistani (what a surprise). You can’t both be right with all your evidence. I daresay you are both wrong!  Sure, there are people converting from one religion to another. But they are an ABSOLUTE MINORITY. It happens both ways. Think of Cat Stevens who now is Jusuf Islam. Or Cassius Clay who now is Mohammed Ali. The reasons for such individual decisions of minorities must be examined individually. It often has to do with inter-religious marriage. It often has to do with growing up amidst a minority group*. There certainly might also be cases where somebody just finds the other faith more convincing. But we are getting to the minorities of the minorities. They can’t be taken as evidence pro or contra Christianity. What CAN be taken as VERY POWERFUL evidence against ANY specific religion is the correlation of religion, time and place that I mentioned before. It reveals the randomness of faith. *as in the Case of Franck Ribéry. He’s a French Soccer Star who became a Muslim because he grew up in a suburb where almost everybody was a Muslim. Many parts of the Bible- not least the central event (the Resurrection) are strange. But one of the biggest evidences IMO for the truth of the faith is the reliability of the authors in their claims about the resurrection of Christ. Here’s your opportunity to score, Josh. If you can wipe away the doubts about the credibility of the authors AND their stories, you made a big point. The “Authorship-Thread” is waiting for us. BTW, what exactly do you mean by us "not knowing the authors"- you mean, like who they are, or detailed information about them? To know someone means more than merely knowing his name or identifying the author. Especially when dealing with outlandish claims. Let’s say we found an ancient pergament where an unknown author says that they had a bad harvest because of a dry summer. It’s not too hard to believe that, even if we don’t know much about the author. It happens all the time. But if somebody tells me that the incarnated God (or son of God) came to earth, worked miracles en masse, died to take away the sin of mankind (how does that make sense?) and resurrected... Well, such a person must be more than merely identified, if I’m supposed to believe him or even listen to him. He’s got to be at least an eyewitness among many other eyewitnesses, he’s got to be free of any suspicion. In other words: he's got be waterproof. Well, I've gotten to about 1/2 of it in our discussions and there's more to come. Maybe you saved the best for last? But evidence is somewhat in the eye of the beholder. Yes and no. You’re making it a bit easy for yourself. We must find an objective basis on which to agree what is BIG evidence and what not. Philosophical discourses about the nature of morality, for instance, don’t mean anything to the truth. Fact is the only thing that counts. Depending on the strength of the fact, there is a lot of or little room for alternatives. Only if the fact is so strong, that there is little room for alternatives, we can speak of big evidence in my opinion. So, how about when we are discussing something I think is BIG to me, I'll just put up a little red flag so you know Do that. Here you act as if I have not been/ am not ever skeptical of the bible, but am deeply skeptical of this author. I'd like to characterize myself as equally skeptical*. It's just I have more experience working through that skepticism with Christianity. I suspect you of not really being skeptical of the bible. Maybe you’re more skeptical than others, but not really close to an objective glance either. That might be unfair. But it’s my impression. I’m sorry if I’m doing you wrong. I have my reasons. I don’t think Christianity endures an objective check-up. Been there, done that. Apparently we don't share the same view of Hinduism. I disagree with a lot of it- I agree with some of it- I think some ideas generated under the heading of Hinduism have been horrible and some of them sublime, but I don't really think of most of it as "crazy" or "flapdoodlish". Hindus don’t take measures against invasions of wild apes, because they think those apes are soldiers in the army of Ape-God Hanuman. They are afraid Hanuman could become cross. If that isn’t flapdoodle… |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 21, 2008 9:11:34 GMT -8
This is one aspect of the point I was making. But the whole point is much stronger. Believing in something strange is one thing. Having a specific Religion is another thing. The fact that you consider Christianity to be compelling as compared with other belief systems is MOST PROBABLY connected to the fact that you were born into the USA of the 20th century. Had you been born at the same place 500 years earlier you would have believed in “Manitou” or whatever Native Americans happened to believe in. If you were born at the same time in Turkey, you would have been a Muslim with a probability of 99%. What you believe, what you find compelling, is totally random. I have a Muslim friend telling me all the time about all the evidence for Islam. He’s Pakistani (what a surprise). You can’t both be right with all your evidence. I daresay you are both wrong! Sure, there are people converting from one religion to another. But they are an ABSOLUTE MINORITY. It happens both ways. Think of Cat Stevens who now is Jusuf Islam. Or Cassius Clay who now is Mohammed Ali. The reasons for such individual decisions of minorities must be examined individually. It often has to do with inter-religious marriage. It often has to do with growing up amidst a minority group*. There certainly might also be cases where somebody just finds the other faith more convincing. But we are getting to the minorities of the minorities. They can’t be taken as evidence pro or contra Christianity. What CAN be taken as VERY POWERFUL evidence against ANY specific religion is the correlation of religion, time and place that I mentioned before. It reveals the randomness of faith. Mo, I'm mostly in agreement with you here except 2 points: A. Your above points stress the differences in religions, but don't acknowledge the similarities. There is a lot of agreement among religious people, so one could argue that on their own (relatively) many different cultures and peoples come up with very similar conclusions about the nature of reality. In other words, beliefs are not totally random. It's as if you assume that the beliefs of each culture are randomly generated, like: Culture 1's beliefs: ACDTY Culture 2's beliefs: MDEZB Culture 3's beliefs: CTWXJ Culture 4's beliefs: RTJPOG When, in reality, it's more like: Culture 1's beliefs: ABCDE Culture 2's beliefs: ABCDF Culture 3's beliefs: ABCGO Culture 4's beleifs: ABZGP You could, of course, just link this to an "evolutionary history of religion" rather than actually, individualized discoveries and reflections, but that would be another discussion (a good one, I'm sure) B. Your above reflections arguably apply just as readily to acculturation of atheism/ agnosticism. Put yourself forward into a future in which atheism/ agnosticism enjoys adherents somewhere around 80-90 % of certain countries population. I'd argue that the same percentage of people would simply adopt atheism/ agnosticism as their "belief" about reality simply because they grew up in an environment that favored that, not merely because it is their choice. I am interested in what Dawkins has to say about that later in his book. I'm sure he's got a plan on how atheists could avoid such a passive passing on of their beliefs to their kids, but, I'll tell you what, I have had several students who proudly proclaim their atheists just because their parents are. And the evidences for their atheism are often really pathetic and easily refutable. For instance, one of my students cited as the primary reason for his atheism that the Bible couldn't be trusted because the New Testament was written hundreds of years after Jesus lived. I've also heard cited as a reason for atheism, that the Bible has been changed numerous times over the centuries so we can't even say what the bible orginally intended. Obviously, these kids didn't do any real research, they were just parroting what their parents said*. Anyway, everyone (atheist, agnostic, buddhist, christian) tend toward belief in what they're familiar with. But this bias must be taken into account when seeking "truth", though it can never be fully avoided (neither should it, perhaps). * I suspect that my view on "inculcation" of kids (whether christian or atheist) is probably going to differ from Dawkins, so I'm curious. PS: In regard to Hindu "flapdoodle" I'd like to follow up with that elsewhere when I get some time: Hindu Flapdoodle? |
|
|
|
Post by moritz on Jul 21, 2008 10:29:54 GMT -8
Mo, I'm mostly in agreement with you here... wow! I knew it  A. Your above points stress the differences in religions, but don't acknowledge the similarities. There is a lot of agreement among religious people, so one could argue that on their own (relatively) many different cultures and peoples come up with very similar conclusions about the nature of reality. In other words, beliefs are not totally random. I know that there are lots of similarities especially among the Abrahamic religions. But I don't see what this has to do with anything. There are still enough fundamental differences between religions for them to consider themselves separate religions. And even if they agreed on anything, you would still find the specific denominations clustered. And don't forget the time axis! B. Your above reflections arguably apply just as readily to acculturation of atheism/ agnosticism. Put yourself forward into a future in which atheism/ agnosticism enjoys adherents somewhere around 80-90 % of certain countries population. I'd argue that the same percentage of people would simply adopt atheism/ agnosticism as their "belief" about reality simply because they grew up in an environment that favored that, not merely because it is their choice. Absolutely. But this isn't contradicting my point either. Every human must ask himself why he believes what he believes. Most people don't seem to do that. But most people don't seem to care too much about finding the truth either. The different religious clusters in the world indicate, that most people believe what they are born into*. I don't think there's an evolutionary reason for this. I don't think that Western European Brains develeoped in a way that favores Christianity over Islam It IS random, no matter how little the cultural differences are. And it's big evidence against specific belief-systems. * this referrs to the society, not necessarily the parents' house As far as Dawkins is concerned: I'm sure you're assuming that he'll say: "passing a ludicrous belief-system on to defenseless children is child abuse." At least that was what I expected. But that's not his point. His point is...** (if you want to wait until you get to that chapter, stop reading here. If you want to hear the point, read below) **Dawkins isn't telling parents not to pass on to their children what they believe is right. His point is: He's all against LABELLING children! Nobody would ever say: my baby daughter is Marxist. But they say: my baby daughter is a Catholic. That a baby CAN'T be a Catholic because it can't understand what catholicism is all about, is self evident. This kind of labelling has a lot of bad effects for children. It increases religious segregation for instance. And what is worst from a philosophical perspective: It impedes children from finding an own answer one day. I think we all agree that a faith that is only based on parental influence is worth nothing. You gotta deal with your faith, be skeptical, put it to the test, make your OWN decision. Here's what Dawkins says himself: |
|
