Jeff Shallit: “Surely the right analogy is Santa Claus to Jesus Christ. Both are mythical figures . . . ” — spectacular Fail at History 101

_{kairosfocus

September 25, 2014

Atheism, rhetoric, worldview}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I just now noticed the above clip by Mr Shallit, who by making such a sophomoric blunder, thereby disqualifies himself from being taken seriously.

I suggest that he spends a bit over an hour with this 101 level video:

[vimeo 17960119]

U/D: GeoffR gives useful link to a Peter Williams Lecture, also:

[youtube r5Ylt1pBMm8]

U/D Oct 16: This video lecture by Habermas on the minimal facts issue is even more pivotal:

[youtube ay_Db4RwZ_M]

(For more I suggest here on, which inter alia addresses the minimal facts held to be well grounded by an absolute majority of relevant scholars to an overwhelming one regarding Jesus of Nazareth. Also, the video course here and onwards.)

We need to ask serious questions about the level of thought of skeptics unwilling to do enough investigation to recognise that Jesus of Nazareth, called Christ by his followers, is one of the best documented historical figures of C1 Palestine. END

PS: Mr Shallit also needs to think very carefully indeed about accusing millions of people who are more aware of the facts than he is, about being parents who “indoctrinate” children concerning Jesus. Such a hostile and even accusatory choice of words is ill-becoming, especially in a case where the assertion of Jesus being a mythical character comparable to the Chimney-climbing, North Pole- dwelling, reindeer pulled sleigh- riding Santa Claus of modern legend is easily seen to be demonstrably ill-founded.

Comments

UB, add to that, in the statement that the only actually observed cause of FSCO/I is design. KF PS: I notice, the thread is being slid away from the focal issue, a revealing historical blunder joined to a grievous insinuation against millions of people.kairosfocus_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

WS: I think I missed what would be a trollish incivility matter. And, you have made a rather self-serving summary of what you have done in the above. I suggest you examine my response at 9 to your ill founded, loaded assertions and insinuations in 8, as well as the actual online text of TMLO as linked. KFkairosfocus_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:58 PM
5
05
58
PM
PDT}

So, Barry, please explain to me again how my view that ID is a religious doctrine is “cynical and uncharitable “?
ID is design detection. End. Can you explain the religious supposition in semiosis, translation, or irreducible complexity? You'll answer your own question.Upright BiPed_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:55 PM
5
05
55
PM
PDT}

Barry @11: "Now I understand the basis of your belief that ID is religiously based. The essence of your belief is a cynical and uncharitable refusal to take people at their word. OK, you are entitled to be cynical and uncharitable. No law against that." Followed almost immediately by: Barry: "Blasphemy crosses the line. Graham2 is no longer with us." (your bolder text, not mine). I guess there is a law against it. It has been nice knowing you G2. So, Barry, please explain to me again how my view that ID is a religious doctrine is "cynical and uncharitable "?william spearshake_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:49 PM
5
05
49
PM
PDT}

WS has apparently never heard of the genetic fallacy. Or simply doesn't care if his reasoning relies on fallacies.Mung_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:34 PM
5
05
34
PM
PDT}

G2: You mean THIS court case (the link is to the note keyed to from my handle which comes up for every comment I have ever made at UD, this is hardly an evasion . . .), that cannot stand serious scrutiny on the merits but is waved as an increasingly tattered flag as though it is definitive because it reinforces prejudices? And, I think you need to rethink your evident hostility to theism, to the Judaeo-Christian worldview, to adherents, and linked motive mongering. The matter in the OP is a historical blunder of epic proportions. You cannot seem to bring yourself to acknowledge that and face it, instead enabling attempts to change the subject. That speaks volumes. As does your refusal to acknowledge what any number of design thinkers openly accept per inductive logic: if key signs of design as cause such as FSCO/I can be overturned by credible counter-example the ID project fails. If you have such, bring them forth -- the challenge I issued was it two years back now is still open. I will host such a cogent case right here at UD. But the absence of that simple, direct and devastating reply after so long means I am not holding my breath. And, well-poisoning motive mongering and using words like "religion" as epithets, is not an answer on the merits. Where, let us remember, the Op context is an invidious false accusation of "indoctrination" against millions of parents for the thought crime of raising their Children in their Christian faith . . . which speaks volumes. KFkairosfocus_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT}

BA, actually, mainly a history matter. I find it astonishing that supposedly educated and responsible people can imagine and publicly announce as though it is indubitable, that Jesus of Nazareth, called Christ by his followers, is mythical comparable to Santa. Those who do so discredit themselves. I can understand disputing the resurrection of Jesus or the like, and arguing over the reality of God, but the bare historical fact is not reasonably open to serious-minded dispute. And the lame point that one can find gaps or apparent difficulties across the four biographies so can dismiss their core substance simply reflects a failure to understand reasonable use of historical sources [btw cf here on that as well as the already linked on the minimal facts methods]. It is increasingly clear that the sort of hyperskepticism we are seeing here is ill-founded and sophomoric. KFkairosfocus_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

Blasphemy crosses the line. Graham2 is no longer with us. Graham2_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:11 PM
5
05
11
PM
PDT}

Good for you WS. The context of your question in 2 was KF was discussing a religion matter, and it appeared that on that basis alone you asked your question. Now I understand the basis of your belief that ID is religiously based. The essence of your belief is a cynical and uncharitable refusal to take people at their word. OK, you are entitled to be cynical and uncharitable. No law against that.Barry Arrington_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
05:02 PM
5
05
02
PM
PDT}

TMLOkairosfocus_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT}

WS, your characterisation of the history of modern design theory based on propagandistic myths is demonstrably wrong. In the 70's as pointed out, the significance of FSCO/I was emerging per Orgel and Wicken etc. By 1982, lifelong agnostic Sir Fred Hoyle -- at about the time when his testimony in Arkansas was being used to dismiss Young Earth Creationism in New Scientist etc [I read this at the time] -- was already going to print about cosmological intelligent design. In 1984 -- three years before the 1987 rulings you allude to -- Thaxton et al published The Mystery of Life's Origin, the first technical ID book. By 1985 - 6, Denton published Evolution, a Theory in Crisis. The myths of Dover c 2005 are demonstrably false. And, in fact, you did a slight concession then diverted to a strawman caricature that more than takes it back, driven by propaganda claims unwisely allowed into a ruling by an ill-advised Judge. Let's just say that someone who thought Inherit the Wind was even near to history, was not firing on all cylinders. Time to rethink WS. Especially given the context set by the OP which you have yet to cogently address on the merits. Remember, that includes in effect an insinuation of mass child abuse by Christian parents, based on foolishly equating Jesus to the North Pole dwelling Santa of modern legends. KF PS: How would you take it if I were to motive monger on evident atheism as if such suffices to dismiss claims about science by atheists? I suggest to you that a basic respect and regard for truth would lead one to correct the sort of sophomoric error Shallit has made and that motive mongering and accusations on propagandistic well poisoning myths on the origins of design theory are destructively fallacious and reflective of bias and hostility verging on bigotry. The design inference FYI stands or falls not on theology but the inductive logic argument that FSCO/I is a reliable sign of design as cause. The ongoing case in point is showing how the objections to this are falling apart.kairosfocus_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:55 PM
4
04
55
PM
PDT}

Barry: "Prediction: WS will evade and deflect rather than answer the question in comment 4" Why? That obviously is not a logical conclusion. But your logical statements (false) were drafted to be a trap (lawyer?). Given that ID didn't surface until Creationism was ruled a religion, and since it encompasses everything from 6000 year earth creationists, to evolutionary theists, and since most authors and most supportive commenters are theists (ie, Christian) I stand my my previous claim.william spearshake_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:42 PM
4
04
42
PM
PDT}

The truth doesn't matter to these people, and why should it? But should they ever be falsely accused of something, God help us.Mung_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:34 PM
4
04
34
PM
PDT}

Prediction: WS will evade and deflect rather than answer the question in comment 4.Barry Arrington_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT}

WS: Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ is simply not in the same ontological or epistemological category as the Mythical North Pole dwelling Santa. To describe him as such and to accuse millions of parents of indoctrination is an outrage and a reflection of utter intellectual bankruptcy and want of basic broughtupcy. If you want to debate the warrant for theological claims concerning Jesus which have been taught by eyewitnesses in C1 and have been preserved on record since that is a different matter, one that you can take up here on if you wish; I will simply say that the common g you used speaks telling volumes and point you here on on that topic; the implied dismissal in that lower case letter you so cleverly used is by no means a well grounded view and its context of enabling Shallit in his dismissing those who beg to differ as "indoctrinating" helpless children should call for an apology. Concerning Mr Shallit, to puff up oneself sophomorically and dismiss Jesus in the same breath as Santa, is utterly inexcusable. KFkairosfocus_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:29 PM
4
04
29
PM
PDT}

WS @ 3: Premise 1: X supports ID theory and argues for it. Premise 2: X is a Christian and discusses it. Conclusion: ID theory is religiously based. Now I ask you, does the conclusion follow logically from the premises?Barry Arrington_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:23 PM
4
04
23
PM
PDT}

Before anyone jumps all over me, I think that a rabbi existed who may fit the description of JC. But agreeing that he existed is not the same as saying that he is god. There are plenty of chronological discrepancies in the biblical story. But, leaving that aside, what else do you have? And, while you are at it, you can explain how UD is a supporter for ID without being religiously based.william spearshake_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT}

Shallit elicits a lot of double face palms KF. It makes it all the more amusing that he considers himself to be one of the great intellects of our time.Barry Arrington_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Double face-palm!kairosfocus_{September 25, 2014
September
09
Sep
25
25
2014
04:07 PM
4
04
07
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply