@SuzanEraslan So you'd argue that all the other mystics and magical miracle workers ought to be regarded as valid representatives of supernatural powers? If claims of miracles are ubiquitous, you can't use the claim as evidence that one person's magic tricks are somehow uniquely genuine.

@pzmyers No, I would not argue that they were somehow genuine. The article argues that because Jesus was described as a miracle healer that is proof of his non-existence. It's not. We have loads of cult leaders, shamans, reiki healers, evangelical preachers who can "heal this sick" but they're all extant humans, even if their supernatural "powers" are not real.

@SuzanEraslan Stephen Law does not claim to have "proof" at all.

"The contamination principle, P2, is a prima facie plausible principle that, in conjunction with other prima face plausible premises, delivers the conclusion that, in the absence of good independent evidence for the existence of an historical Jesus, we are justified in remaining sceptical about the existence of such a person. "

That's the strongest statement he makes.

@pzmyers I suppose what I'm saying is you can't make the jump from "supernatural powers aren't real" to "anyone people claim has supernatural powers obviously could not have existed." It's a leap of faith in and of itself to make that assumption.

@SuzanEraslan Except, of course, that nowhere in the essay does he make that argument.

@pzmyers My apologies for indicting the essayist for that wild leap of faith rather than the poster, then-- because you did in your blog post. It's literally the title.

@SuzanEraslan "he probably didn’t exist in the first place" is not synonymous with "I have proof of his nonexistence."

@pzmyers Well of course not-- one can't prove non-existence-- but now you're using weasel words to justify that what you meant wasn't exactly what you said. I suppose that I don't understand the tack of trying to discredit (or for that matter, credit) a religion by arguing about the historical fact of its founder's existence. (Though it's difficult to argue based on most of the gospels that Jesus was the founder of a new religion so much as just a revolutionary Jew.)

@SuzanEraslan Expressing appropriate levels of caution in interpretation is not "weasel words".

This is a holiday on which Xians celebrate a literal resurrection of a literal god-man, in a country where biblical literalism is used to argue for all kinds of nonsense. To point out that they lack even the slightest speck of respectable evidence for their core claims is reasonable and necessary.

@SuzanEraslan Scientists don't argue that they possess absolute truth. Rather, we demand a reasonable chain of evidence to support an interpretation. That Christianity lacks such a chain, that even the first link in their religion is dubious, is an argument that one should be extremely skeptical of their beliefs.

@pzmyers Because religion is not science and science is not religion, and attempting to prove or disprove or discredit one with the other belies a fundamental misunderstanding of the uses of either. Science is the study of the natural world, and thus has nothing to say to the supernatural-- you can no more use science as the measuring tool for god than you can use pen and paper to cook a meal. They're different fields entirely.

@pzmyers People who are deeply religious will use "there is no proof of this" as impetus to entrench themselves further in literalism because it requires faith-- the more that faith is questioned, the more the proof of it is to believe harder. The better tactic is to live and let live, rather than persecute and (by their doctrine) confirm.

@SuzanEraslan Ah. Disagreeing with dogma is now "persecution".

No, I don't support persecuting Xians or any other religious group. That does not mean, however, that I can't criticize bad ideas.

@pzmyers Yes, by the definition of the church (and most religious doctrines) the wholesale dismissal of their system of belief as false is exactly what they understand as persecution. You're not fighting dogma by drilling down into questioning the validity of myth based on the lack of observable objective fact. Myth and dogma are two different (and often conflicting) elements of belief systems. One is a story, the other is a codified, authoritarian set of rules.

@SuzanEraslan If I believe that the failure of the universe to bring me pie & ice cream right now is persecution, that doesn't make it persecution.

It is necessary to oppose both the myth and the dogma, because the myth is the story they use to justify the dogma.

It's also not even a beautiful story. Torture & execution, really? A delusional lie that we can avoid death by believing in a myth? No thank you, that is evil and stupid.

@pzmyers Alright. I'm not interested in battling a fundamentalist of any kind today. I hope you have a completely unmagical and acceptable, objectively good Sunday.

@SuzanEraslan Does religion claim to say anything about the natural world? It certainly does. Then it is subject to the rigor of scientific examination.

Does science say anything about a supernatural world? It can't. Then religion is safe from criticism as long as it confines itself to statements about its isolated fantasy.

Jesus is claimed to be a man who lived on Earth. He's *ours*, in science's domain. You don't get to claim an exemption for him.

@pzmyers Given that you used the "appropriate level of caution" as plausible deniability to walk back a claim you seem to believe (given the second part of this toot) when called on it, it's absolutely the definition of weasel words.

And that idea is such a fundamental misunderstanding of religiosity that it's mind blowing to me that anyone believes that would work. I'm not trying to attack you because I'm a theist, but this tactic is unproductive in trying to bring about the change you seek.

@SuzanEraslan "Plausible deniability"? Of what? My first words on the subject, the title as you pointed out, avoided absolutist language, so I have nothing to walk back.

It is likely that Jesus, the Son of God, did not exist, even if Jesus, son of a carpenter, did. If you want to argue otherwise, the burden is on you to provide better evidence than secondary sources touting magic tricks as proof of godhood.

@pzmyers I don't think you understand what "weasel words" mean, but ok. You made two very "gotcha" statements in both your toot and your blog post, but now you're walking them back by saying you used "probably" in one of them. You say "is nonexistent" -- "the reason for the season" being interpreted, exclusively as the resurrection, ok, sure, but then you go on at the actual blog to say "Jesus is a myth." But you don't qualify that as "Jesus the Christ is a myth" but simply Jesus, full stop.

@pzmyers And no, I'm not trying to make an argument that Jesus Christ (as opposed to Jesus of Nazareth) existed. I'm actually not trying to argue either way of existence vs. non-existence. I'm arguing that your tactic is unsuccessful because it doesn't take into consideration the nature of that which you are trying to fight-- you're going to battle with the wrong weapons.

@SuzanEraslan While you're presupposing the "battle" I'm fighting, and getting it all wrong.

I'm saying there are good ways to support a claim, and religion lacks them.

You're trying to tell me that there are people who believe in a different standard of evidence, and I'm not going to persuade them that a detail is wrong.

I don't give a damn about the detail. I'm demanding that others meet a rational, evidentiary standard that they would accept if they were buying a car, but reject for god.

@pzmyers Why would you apply the same metric to god that you would a car? One is rapturous and passionate, the other an investment of capital in an physical object-- do you kick the tires on a person before you fall in love with them? This is such a weird parallel to draw.

@SuzanEraslan "rapturous and passionate" does not excuse wholesale leaps into ignorance.

And yes, of course I looked critically at the person I fell in love with! If they'd been abusive or didn't reciprocate, then no amount of rapture and passion would excuse their behavior.

Or, I should add, my behavior. Ignoring the reality of another person's behavior to continue forcing a relationship is called stalking.

@SuzanEraslan Do you have evidence for the existence of either Jesus the Christ or Jesus the Man? Because neither exists. All the accounts of Jesus the Whatever were written after his supposed death, and are confabulated with a multitude of other Eastern mystery religion myths.

@pzmyers I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make, willfully or not, and I frankly just woke up on a holiday I, as a non-believer, find beautiful and joyous (having not been raised catholic) and full of the best candy, and I feel like we're at an impasse when you won't disassociate the danger of dogma from the power of narrative, which is, ironically, an association fundamentalists won't sever, either.