When you have nothing else, go for the straw man

John Dickson might just be proof that, even if you have a blog on the ABC, you can still be a twat. His latest Christmas special, A fight they can't win: The irreligious assault on the historicity of Jesus, which is already too verbose just in its title alone, manages to compose an elaborate straw man which is fastidiously dismantled. Too bad its totally irrelevant to the irreligious or the religious.

Talking about the 'historicity' of Jesus to the religious is a perfect waste of time. No matter who Jesus was as a Jew from Nazaret, he has been progressively buried in layers of doctrinal sediment. Each new Biblical scholar 'discovers' Jesus 'anew', with all the awe of a kiddy opening presents from under a Christmas tree. A new revelation is entirely par for the course - it certainly guarantees a following amongst the gullible.

Talking to the irreligious about Jesus is likewise futile. Since Jesus is quite likely to have been the unremarkable son of a craftsman who 'fell into' fame, as many second rate performers do and certainly not a god, prophet or miracle worker, this line of conversation will probably elicit "Uh-huh".

Where Dickson shows his capacity for spin is in his denigration of Dawkins. If in doubt, a glorious ad hominem may cover the singular lack of argument. Supposedly, "Richard Dawkins says 'a serious historical case' can be made that 'Jesus never lived at all,'" and from this "no doubt receives applause from his followers". Of course, few of Dawkins followers are so woefully ignorant of his words as Dickson. In fact, on page 122, Dawkins does say

"IT IS EVEN POSSIBLE to mount a serious, THOUGH NOT WIDELY SUPPORTED, historical case that Jesus never lived at all, as has been done by, among others Professor G. A. Wells of the University of London in a number of books, including Did Jesus Exist? Although Jesus PROBABLY existed." (My capitalisation, for the selectively blind)

What is even more pathetic is that Dickson cherry picks this book as many Christian commentators are want to do to the Bible. If lacking an argument of substance, simply ignore the thesis of the book in preference to a selective quote that can be easily refuted (if you even quote it accurately).

The substance of the God Delusion is that belief in God is delusional - that is, it demonstrates the same characteristics as a belief as any other beliefs considered to be delusional beliefs. Dickson probably laughs at spiritualism; a seance is a magic trick. Yet up until Houdini comprehensively exposed spiritualism it was accepted as within the realms of possibility by many of the educated and scholarly. These days we might section someone who consistently insisted on the delusional belief that granny was following him around.

Some of Dawkins arguments are weak on evidence or generalise religion when a more specific analysis is necessary. However, Dawkins has shifted his posture in this regard, as is evidenced in his 'concillitory tone' in

Sex, Death And The Meaning Of Life

Dawkins has moved on, but Dickson prefers the 'straw man' of the person he presumed Dawkins once was.

But, even as an historian, Dickson manages an epic fail. Few people in history have had quite as much opinion and pure speculation written about them as Jesus. Jesus has been both an agent of a vengeful God and the Prince of Peace. He has been both a social radical and affirmation of a long tradition of law. He has been both the humble human and the miracle working superman. If you seriously think you are going to do novel or significant historical work, forget Jesus.

If amongst the 'noise' of 2 millenia of propaganda you can still get any sense of an historical person with some authenticity, then you are either a liar or magician. But the historicity of Jesus is entirely a red herring. Literary criticism is much more useful inn trying to understand Jesus than the historical process of confirming secondary sources with primary sources.

All claims about Jesus and all Jesus' claims can only be seen through a lens of interpretation. In regard to Jesus' claims about himself, letting a character in literature make a case for their own existence or character is absurd. Nobody expects to verify that Julius Caesar was a historical figure by reading in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar that he makes claims to be Julius Caesar. Such claims must be externally verified. Thus, as historians, we cannot accept Jesus' claims about himself, under any circumstances.

We can, however, construct a profile premised in his words and actions as they are recorded. All literature that speaks about an historical figure positions the audience to believe a particular set of precepts. This is a fundamental aspect of all literature. Thus, even if we have witnesses to Jesus' life, we must take into consideration that they will have an agenda in speaking about Jesus.

There is little virtue in even addressing Cathcart's stumble or Nobbs and Judge's correction or an inflated sense of the importance of your own tweets, nor the religious affiliation of an historical author, as Dickson does.  They might help you sound 'terribly scholarly' but add precisely nothing to the real debate - which version of Jesus can actually be authenticated? To this debate Dickson adds precisely nothing. This is because he has precisely nothing to say.

There is even less virtue in lame anecdotes about boxers. For Christ's sake, Dickson, can't you even make it slightly funny!

Why Eugenie is talking good sense

This is a reply to the blog: Eugenie Scott says there’s No Contrary Evidence about Evolution and Global Warming at http://www.c4id.org.uk/scott

Greetings Mr Noble. Yours was a polite and clearly written response to Eugenie's talk. However, it lacks in a few signfiicant ways. Before I reply, in the interests of full disclosure, I will confess I am an atheist, although I prefer to call my self an a-God-ist, as I am likewise an a-LochNessMonster-ist. That is, I find no particular reason to believe anything without evidence or a good reason.

First, a little defence of some of the labels Eugenie uses. While 'creationism' is often used as a derogative, I believe Eugenie's use is much more precise. The notion of an external agency to the universe that can interact with the universe is most frequently found in religion. Spiritualism does not necessarily require an external agency, so this can't be considered to be the source of this concept.

In religion, external agency is found in creation myths. Usually the agent has unnatural powers and is able to operate independent of time. Thus, a label of this external agency as creationist is very accurate. The connotation of young earth creationism with the crass right-wing evangelicalism is unfortunate and not of Eugenie's making; and history shows a clear lineage of ID from this position.

However, if we accept your proposition that ID does not suggest religious belief, then it behoves ID to declare the belief premise for its position. For example, the belief premise may be revelation. ID proponents may believe that they have recieved a special message from God. On the other hand, this revelation may simply be a hightened awareness of the natural world - a kind of 'uh-ha' moment.

Each of these has significant challenges. Special revelation has no verification mechanism, by definition. Thus, this is not belief, but belief that belief need not be verified in order to be pronounced truth. Now, such a belief system is simply incompatible with science. Science begins with the proposition that ALL belief is able to be challenged, albeit by proper means.

Challenges that are simply taking a contrary position do not constitute a challenge; a counter-thesis is not an argument nor evidence for a counter-thesis. Unfortunately, ID has frequently suggested that all counter-theses must be considered, including amongst them ID. On this ground, any suggestion (such as The Matrix - all reality is an illusory product of a super-intelligence) must be conteplated and methodically eliminated.

Since resources for winnowing the infinite number of counter-theses are few, science uses common sense to begin investigation; usually experience. This is not fool-proof but is effective. All that aside, special revelation must eliminated (from a scientific point of view) because it is contrary to science doctrine.

Which only leaves revelation through the natural world. Here, ID faces an irresolveable conundrum. If an agency external to the universe is observable via natural means, on what grounds can we claim it to be external? It must, by definition, be natural - thus, accessible to scientific investigation. If it is not observable, then its existence is entirely speculative, and we return to the point of winnowing an infinite number of guesses at why the universe exists.

Analogies are drawn in an attempt to winnow the possible theses. Human design is used to suggest extra-universal design. But why should a process observed on earth necessarily apply anywhere else, especially external to the universe? Unfortunately, the analogy pre-supposes natural processes occurring outside of nature, an impossible proposition logically.

But suppose, for open-mindedness sake, we were to test the thesis of ID - an external agency made the universe. How do you begin to test that? All tests require natural constraints, so all test results would be suspect. Thus, testing this proposition is impossible. What ID proponents rely on, then, is a fallacy of argumentation - namely, failure to disprove does not offer proof. I cannot disprove that you are an alien, therefore I must entertain the proposition that you are an alien?

The final 'bastion' for ID is 'signs of design' (that is - no test will be successful, but we can see signs, like we see footprints). This proposition suffers from a fallacy of argumentation - that of circularity. To be able to identify these signs, one must first know what to look for. Knowing what to look logically means prior knowledge  of God without the assistance of the signs. Hence, the original knowledge of God comes from another source. If that source is the signs themselves, then the argument is circular. If the source is something like a script or witness of another person, it faces the problem of revelation (described above).

The simple issue is this. Put up or shut up. If there is natural evidence to challenge elements of evolution, let us see them and use them to modify our understanding of evolution. Since not other explanations have credibility at any level, entertaining them comes only from one motivation - to keep our religious friends happy.

The terrible price of sovereignty

Sovereignty is generally understood as a country's right to determine its future and control its affairs. Defending sovereignty is a reoccurring theme of history, not just because 'sovereigns' wanted to maintain power, but because people in general like to feel they have some measure of control over their own destinies, even if that is only in checking the power of their own king, emperor or leader.

Its not general knowledge that, during the Civil War, Union General  Ulysses Grant was a prominent slave owner or that Lee, that wily general who led the 'Southern' forces to so many victories, fought for Virginia, not the CSA  (The Confederate States of America) or for maintenance of slavery, but for the state of Virginia. Mechanisation was already looming in the cotton fields and slavery may have ended quite naturally once the industrial North bought out the South.

Not many of us are aware that The American Civil War was fought over sovereignty, not slavery. It was Lincoln's resolution to keep the Union together that drove the conflict, not a difference in opinion on or his sympathy for the plight of the black population.  Although the more famous of his speeches address emancipation, his real political imperative was holding the Union together for security and economic purposes. Slavery simply provided moral high ground to convince those who wavered.

 

Virginia, once a proud colony of her majesty, after whom she was named, was foremost in adopting the notion of the United States as a bond to overthrow the British control of Virginia and as a bulwark against the looming Spanish colonies.  No-one in Virginia considered themselves a 'citizen of United States'.  Men fought for their state and military units were named by state. The establishment of West Point was about trying to integrate armies before it was about producing elite officers. The 'United States' was a pragmatic arrangement to protect state sovereignty from Great Britain.

 

This sense of state sovereignty continued into the lead up to the Civil War. Jefferson Davis asserted state sovereignty, in a speech to the Senate, as moral grounds for secession. This was no "southern" phenomena - Davis refers to the tension of many states in resolving state rights and sovereignty and the bond with other states  of a United States. For Davis, the control of slaves, not their ownership per se, was the stick that broke the secessionist back. Slaves were 'bleeding' into the North where they became an underclass of labour for Northern states (often living in worse conditions), making the South less attractive to investment. Retrieving these slaves was vital and Federal law stood in its way.

"I then said, if Massachusetts, following her through a stated line of conduct (he is referring to the nullification of a federal law on slavery), chooses to take the last step which separates her from the Union, it is her right to go, and I will neither vote one dollar nor one man to coerce her back, but will say to her, Godspeed, in memory of the kind associations which once existed between her and the other states." (A Final Adieu, Jefferson Davis, January 21, 1861)

Secession to protect state rights was a very 'American' political posture. Texas was an independent country for a fleeting moment. In a decade, it was part of four countries. States maintained militia for the express purpose of preventing the will of the Federals being forced onto a state. Fundamental to maintaining this militia was the notion of being 'ready' by allowing every citizen to own and carry a gun. (Such was the level of ownership of guns that many species became extinct through over hunting. The Eternal Frontier, Tim Flannery)

In the American psyche, the ownership of guns equates with independence and control of one's affairs, not with criminality or war. Thus, high levels of ownership are generally tolerated by most. Of course, the litany of shootings in recent years has exposed this tolerance to another imperative - the need to protect your children. This is the list for the last 6 months of 2012.

1. Newtown, CT, December 14, 2012, 20 children, 6 adults, 1 gunman
2. Chicago, IL, October 21, 2012, Two men, ages 28 and 30, were killed. A 25-year-old pregnant woman was wounded. 1 gunman
3. Brookfield, WI, October 21, 2012, Radcliffe Haughton shot and killed his estranged wife Zina Haughton and two other women and himself. 1 gunman
4. Casselberry, FL, October 18, 2012 Three women were killed and one was wounded. Gunman Bradford Baumet, who later killed himself at another location.
5. Winter Springs, FL, September 30, 2012, Multiple shooters killed two and wounded one.
6. Minneapolis, MN, September 27, 2012, Andrew Engeldinger opened fire, killing five and wounding four before killing himself.
7. Compton, CA, September 10, 2012, A still-unidentified shooter opened fire killing one and injuring two others. Gang-related.
8. Old Bridge, NJ, August 31, 2012, 23-year-old Terence Tyler shot and killed two coworkers at a Pathmark grocery store.
9. Chicago, IL, August 24, 2012, Eight people ranging in age from 14 to 20 years. Unrelated shootings bring the weekend total of August 24 to 19 people.
10. Laplace, LA, August 16, 2012, Two police deputies were killed and two were wounded in a shootout in a suburb of New Orleans
11. August 13, 2012, A 30-minute shootout near the Texas A&M University campus resulted in the deaths of a police constable, a bystander, the shooter, and the injury of four others.
12. Oak Creek, WI, August 5, 2012, Seven people were killed, including the gunman and three injured at a Sikh temple in a Milwaukee suburb.
13. Aurora, CO, July 20, 2012, Twelve people were killed and 58 were injured in Aurora, Colorado during a sold-out midnight premier of the new Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises" when 24-year-old James Holme unloaded four weapons' full of ammunition into the unsuspecting crowd.
14. Tuscaloosa, AL, July 17, 2012, Nathan Van Wilkins stood outside of a crowded downtown bar and opened fire from two different positions early Tuesday, sending patrons running or crawling for cover. At least 17 people were hurt.
15. Chicago, IL, July 11, 2012, Four youngsters are among the latest victims caught in Chicago’s gun violence epidemic, including two middle school-aged girls.
16. Dover, DE, July 9, 2012 At a weekend soccer tournament in Delaware three people died and two were wounded.
17. Chicago, IL, July 6, 2012 Three people were shot, a 19-year-old man was shot in the calf, a 34-year-old man was shot in the back and a 24-year-old man was shot in the thigh.

(Brady Campaign)

To remove guns from the US, the whole orientation of people across the country would have to shift in a way that would be as profound a change as a majority of Australians deciding to arm themselves to fight against the government. It overturns 3 centuries of cultural narrative.

There is no doubt that many Americans would love to see gun control. They don't buy the line of the gun lobby that people not guns kill. But they have such a historical barrier to overcome that it may never happen.