"Pure objectivity" is a myth

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by John T »

What does the author's promotion of vile, anti-Christian, hate speech, and propaganda have to do with Christian Texts and History?

Neil, don't you have your own blog dedicated to peddling that kind of tripe?
Why not leave alone those of us who actually want to engage in Biblical Criticism and History?

You give atheists a bad name. No wonder honest atheists like Tim O'Neill want nothing to do with you. :facepalm:
StephenGoranson
Posts: 2314
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2015 2:10 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by StephenGoranson »

Andrew Criddle wrote:
Granting that none of us are entirely objective some of us are more objective than others.

I, SG, agree with that.
And I suggest that it may be that the reply to that by NG above misses that point.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

StephenGoranson wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:13 am Andrew Criddle wrote:
Granting that none of us are entirely objective some of us are more objective than others.

I, SG, agree with that.
And I suggest that it may be that the reply to that by NG above misses that point.
I would prefer you and / or Andrew to give an actual example of how A's assertion contradicts anything in what I said in the OP. My reply was simply trying to explain WHY it is that we see some persons as "less objective" than others (usually meaning "ourselves").

I would predict that examples of a "less objective" view would, when examined, actually demonstrate what my OP is saying.

Replying with a mere counter-assertion is not a reasoned engagement with the explanation I put forth.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:59 am Not worth having a conversation with someone lacks the pangs of conscience objectivity or fairness. Good luck in your clandestine guerilla war.
You've put me in a bit of a bind, SA.

If I quoted the various scholars whose publications I used for the OP you would have said I am trying to show off how well read I am. ;)

Yet the scholars I quoted are the same species of being who are way above the rest of us, you say, and we should respect their authority, if I recall your messages correctly, yes?

If you are trying to say that my OP is "lacking pangs of conscience" --- I do have to reply, no, it is in fact grounded in conscious awareness of the need to be honest. Honest about how we arrive at our views and belief systems. Honest about how we are handling the evidence.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 6:39 am I like to argue because it gives me an opportunity to test the limits of my commitment to fairness. What idée fixe do I have? On the topic du jour, mythicism, I say that I think 'Jesus' was for Christianity a supernatural being 'Man' known to Jews and Samaritans but I can't completely discount the fact that there was a historical Jesus to whom the 'myth' (for lack of a better word) was applied. I've argued on behalf of the viability of the interpretation of the nomen sacrum IC as 'Man' based on a large part to statements in the early Church Fathers. I've consistently defended scholars like Morton Smith, Bart Ehrman - accredited authorities, anyone "with a degree" over people without degrees or silly ideas. I always give authorities the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps that makes me an "authoritarian." So be it. If there is one 'idea' that I am 'fixated' on it is that our understanding of 'things related to early Christianity' have to be governed or found in the writings of the Church Fathers, that this is the place which becomes the graveyard of many a silly modern theory. I could go down the list but if I continue too much it begins to sound like someone obsessively making the case that he is not obsessive. Again, I among the first to participate at this forum (after having been 'recruited' to its previous incarnation) because it allows me to test the fairness of my arbitration of ideas and at times humor and occasionally off the cuff wit. All, again, for an audience of one.
If I attached the names of the various scholars whose ideas lie behind the OP would you be prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt and take a second look at your starting points?

But should not arguments be able to stand or fall on their own merit?

Can you critique the argument I put forth in the OP? Retorting that its author, in your view, is an ally of evil who doesn't care about the truth nor has any pangs of conscience re fairness or objectivity, does not sound like a very "objective" response. ;)
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

I am attempting to call upon the prevailing view among scholars about the nature of knowledge and our biases. This understanding has the potential to promote respect for those with views different from our own, and a deeper understanding of where others are coming from and where our own ideas are orginating, and thereby enables a more civil engagement with others, a respectful way to analyse and explain why we find various views right or wrong, sensible or lunatic, "more objective" or "less objective".

You crucify me for preaching peace and understanding, respect and love? :tombstone:
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 1:53 am Granting that none of us are entirely objective some of us are more objective than others.

Andrew Criddle
Do you have an example to illustrate the sort of case you had in mind?

My OP would predict that such a case would be explained by the logic of how our belief-systems govern how we select and interpret evidence. The point being that understanding where we all come from will be more profitable than assuming moral or intellectual failings on the part of those we disagree with.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

Secret Alias wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:59 am Not worth having a conversation with someone lacks the pangs of conscience objectivity or fairness. Good luck in your clandestine guerilla war.
There was a monster in the last century who dehumanized Jews by imputing to them characteristics that denied them basic human nature. But Jews were not the only targets of his dehumanizing program: he included certain persons with a certain philosophical and ideological viewpoint.

The litany of accusations you have heaped upon me, SA, reminds me of that same sort of dehumanization. It is not appropriate in a forum like this or anywhere else, for that matter. That certain scholars whom you appear to revere (your own statements indicate reverence -- another form of dehumanization, a reverse form turning them into a "another species" than the rest of us -- another form of fundamentalism according to the studies on fundamentalism) engage in the same sort of abuse and insult towards others is no excuse.

My OP was about breaking down the tendency to see our opponents in terms of morality or intellectual culpability. It was about understanding how we all work. It was also taken from a basic post-grad reading for a course in educational studies. Nothing in the OP would be contrary to the vast majority of your "other species" of being.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by neilgodfrey »

Or think: How would we expect others to respond if I said you, a Jew, lacked a conscience, did not care about truth, were motivated in everything I wrote by "hate", that I was waging a "clandestine war", or were an "ally of evil"? -- everything that you have accused me of in recent days.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18371
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: "Pure objectivity" is a myth

Post by Secret Alias »

No I will give you WHAT I THINK is the proper analogy. In a previous post I used a sports analogy. You went on to speak of banning people. A referee or arbiter in sport has the purpose of keeping things fair. He often cautions the players, reminding to abide by 'fair play.' The sport analogy or the parallel in sports would be a player announcing to the referee and everyone involved in the game and in the stands that he doesn't believe in fair play, that it is 'an impossible standard' that 'EVERYONE' is 'cheating anyway' and 'NO ONE' is abiding be fair play so he should effectively leave the game and allow complete anarchy. It's just ridiculous. If you substitute 'fairness' for 'objectivity' it's plain that we have to maintain the proper decorum, the proper demeanor, the intention at least to strive to 'see things from another perspective.' Once someone says objectivity doesn't exist their saying in effect that fairness isn't possible and - I would contend - that they won't try to play fair. That's the point everyone else should leave that person to play on his or her own.
Post Reply