Page 15 of 33

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 1:22 am
by neilgodfrey
Robert Tulip wrote: Scientific truth is not optional, it is objective.
But you never respond when I point out where and how you don't follow the scientific method yourself. You even said it was "ridiculous" to suggest you should look for ways to test your hypothesis and try to break it. But of course you have never responded to my other criticisms that point out that you need to present a hypothesis in a manner that is falsifiable. Presumably you think that is ridiculous, too. Your astrotheology is as far from being scientific as is homeopathy.

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 2:18 am
by Robert Tulip
neilgodfrey wrote:I point out where and how you don't follow the scientific method yourself.
No, you don’t. I am directly following the scientific method. I start with a hypothesis, that Gnosticism gave birth to Orthodoxy, and then examine the evidence to show how this hypothesis is far more explanatory than any alternative to it. The loaves and fishes miracle is just one case study for this broad paradigm shift in historical understanding of Christian origins.
neilgodfrey wrote: You even said it was "ridiculous" to suggest you should look for ways to test your hypothesis and try to break it.
The role of precession in Gnostic cosmology is an important scientific discovery. A big part of the discovery is the pathology of blind denial, which amazingly is precisely described in the Gospel of Mark, as we have discussed. Breaking my hypothesis is something that I have said other people are welcome to attempt. It seems no one is up to it. My view is that is because what I have suggested points to a significant new paradigm.
neilgodfrey wrote: But of course you have never responded to my other criticisms that point out that you need to present a hypothesis in a manner that is falsifiable. Presumably you think that is ridiculous, too. Your astrotheology is as far from being scientific as is homeopathy.
Neil, you should not embarrass yourself with such stupidity. Homeopathy is readily testable as an empirical claim. As with astrology, no scientific tests have ever shown any evidence for homeopathic claims. This means that if the claims are true at all they are sub-statistical, far weaker than their advocates claim.

The claim of Gnostic origins of Christianity does not lend itself to similar statistical or laboratory testing, and instead is about a complete paradigm shift in our understanding of how Christianity originated, through psychological, cosmological and political analysis of how the mass delusion of the Big Lie of the Historical Jesus was achieved. Showing that Gnosticism was in fact far more decisive for early Christianity than the Orthodox admit requires analysis of the evidence to see how it coheres with the hypothesis.

Examples such as the loaves and fishes story provide abundant and elegant concealed statement of the real Gnostic meaning of the Christ story. I understand that Christians have infinite personal capacity to ignore evidence in favour of evangelical rhetoric, given their emotional and social commitments, but I would hope that some readers here would be smarter than that.

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Fri May 09, 2014 4:51 pm
by neilgodfrey
Robert Tulip wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:I point out where and how you don't follow the scientific method yourself.
No, you don’t. I am directly following the scientific method. I start with a hypothesis, that Gnosticism gave birth to Orthodoxy, and then examine the evidence to show how this hypothesis is far more explanatory than any alternative to it.

That's not the scientific method. If you've done nothing more than seek confirmation of your hypothesis no-one else has any obligation to take it seriously at all. That's not how hypotheses pass peer review in the scholarly literature.

You have demonstrated your ignorance of the alternative explanations and swept them all aside on the irrelevant grounds that their proponents believe in a historical Jesus. Nice excuse but it only shows you have no knowledge of how to even begin to test your hypothesis. You only know how to do confirmation bias. That's all. And you want others to do your hard work for you -- and when they do you accuse them of wilful misrepresentation or spiritual blindness.

You've said you follow the 4 points at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetic ... tive_model. But you don't. Your prediction is so vague as to be meaningless- it is the sort of prediction that any hypothesis can predict; and you never for a moment consider contrary evidence. You have made up your mind to rationalize away any explanation that contradicts yours.

You say you do a detailed textual analysis but all you do is grab a few words from the text one after another and then leap off into streams of consciousness stuff that are unrelated to the original text and call that "textual analysis".

Your method, as I have shown and as you simply scoff at without any reasoned argument, can be applied to show that Casey's book is also an astrotheological treatise. Your only reason for disagreeing is that you give special mystery status to the Bible.

Not even your hypothesis that there is a common natural universal way of structuring time is valid as I have shown. You even ignore that.

And to cap it all off all those who disagree with you are condemned for their hard-heartedness and spiritual blindness --- shaking off the dust of your sandals as you finish one more diatribe against the nonbelievers.

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 1:10 am
by Robert Tulip
Unfortunately, everything that Neil Godfrey says in this thread is irrelevant and off topic, with no connection to the themes under discussion except a random spray of error. His comments about scientific method and his misrepresentations of my comments are laughable. He continues to illustrate why DM Murdock will have nothing to do with him, due to the apparent ongoing influence on his thinking of his years as a fundamentalist Christian. You can take the person out of the church but it is often hard to take the church out of the person.

The issue here is paradigm change. The new paradigm of astrotheology observes that Christianity originated in Gnosticism, showing that analysis of Gnostic cosmic themes in the Bible, for example of the loaves and fishes stories, provides a vastly more coherent reading than conventional approaches.

A new paradigm is accepted when it is seen to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the evidence. This is often a slow process, due to entrenched commitment to old false theories. As TS Kuhn explained in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, adherents of an old paradigm simply fail to see what the new paradigm is saying. That is abundantly the case for astrotheology as a more comprehensive and explanatory reading of the Bible.

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Sat May 10, 2014 3:45 pm
by neilgodfrey
Robert Tulip wrote:Unfortunately, everything that Neil Godfrey says in this thread is irrelevant and off topic, with no connection to the themes under discussion except a random spray of error. His comments about scientific method and his misrepresentations of my comments are laughable. He continues to illustrate why DM Murdock will have nothing to do with him, due to the apparent ongoing influence on his thinking of his years as a fundamentalist Christian. You can take the person out of the church but it is often hard to take the church out of the person.

The issue here is paradigm change. The new paradigm of astrotheology observes that Christianity originated in Gnosticism, showing that analysis of Gnostic cosmic themes in the Bible, for example of the loaves and fishes stories, provides a vastly more coherent reading than conventional approaches.

A new paradigm is accepted when it is seen to provide a more comprehensive explanation of the evidence. This is often a slow process, due to entrenched commitment to old false theories. As TS Kuhn explained in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, adherents of an old paradigm simply fail to see what the new paradigm is saying. That is abundantly the case for astrotheology as a more comprehensive and explanatory reading of the Bible.
So you have no answer except Casey-inspired fabricated ad hominem when I have reminded you of the several demonstrations that you do not understand let alone follow the scientific method, that all you are engaging in is confirmation bias, and when I have demonstrated that your model of how time is conceptualized seasonally etc is cultural and local, not universal.

I remind you that I have publicly deplored ad hominem attacks upon DM Murdock. My thanks has been for her to retort with her own outrageously slanderous attacks against me because I point out methodological errors and comparisons with her work and presentation.

I really did hope, Robert, that you just might have attempted to seriously engage with my very specific criticisms instead of responding like this.

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 4:24 am
by Robert Tulip
neilgodfrey wrote:all you are engaging in is confirmation bias, and when I have demonstrated that your model of how time is conceptualized seasonally etc is cultural and local, not universal.
This comment refers to an exchange at viewtopic.php?p=9836#p9836

It is worth extracting the relevant bits here as another example of Neil's apparent inability to examine ancient cosmology in a sensible way, and his tendency to pile wildly false accusations (confirmation bias) on top of his failure to get the basic facts.

I raised the question whether there are any alternative explanations of the myth of Jesus Christ and the twelve disciples that are more plausible than the twelve as universal lunisolar myth. In this context, my use of 'universal' was for all people with any connection to early Christianity, in response to the false assertion in the thread that the idea that Mithras had twelve disciples is 'bonkers'.

Neil raised the irrelevant and false deflection that "the data does not support a universal 'natural structure' of time." I explained, quite simply I thought, that "in human culture, the day and year are universal governing patterns of light and dark, heat and cold, activity and rest." As well as this universal cultural recognition of the day and year (note I did not say seasons), I commented that the observation in Genesis 1 of "the relation between the sun and the moon as ‘the two great lights’ is at the core of all primitive cosmology, providing the natural structure of time in terms of years, months, weeks, days and nights."

Okay, you could nitpick about clarity of expression here, for example since Egyptians used decans. That is not actually relevant, since my point was that these temporal periods are universal natural structures of terrestrial time. The single natural structure underpins a range of cultural structures, varying by location.

I then explained the gravitational physics of the week against the universal rhythm of neap and spring tides driven by the weekly quarters of the moon. Cultural theories do not affect this universal natural physical structure of time.

I was not at all implying that isolated tribes in Australia must have had the same theory of seasons as in Europe. It seems this simple distinction between a natural and a cultural structure of time passed by Neil, who noted that Darwin in northern Australia only has two seasons, where "it's more "natural" to divide seasons not by the moon but by weather and changing hunting and foraging cylces.)"

Things to note here. I never implied that seasons are the same at all latitudes. I live in Australia, so I obviously know our temperate zone seasons are in reverse from those of Europe. But look again at Neil's innumerate claim that my astronomical "model of how time is conceptualized seasonally etc is cultural and local, not universal." This false statement by Neil invalidly mashes together unconnected points, and fails to engage on detail, much less understand the discussion.

I was not talking at this point about how time is conceptualised, but rather the natural structure of time, as an objective scientific discovery in astrophysics. Neil has given me the impression that he thinks there can be no objective universal absolutes, so it does not surprise me that he is oblivious to the objective universal absolutes in astronomy, which for the topic of terrestrial time include the year, the month, the week, the day, and for that matter, the Great Year of precession of the equinoxes. These terrestrial temporal structures have been much the same, with barely detectable change, since before humans evolved.

Without such basic astronomical understanding of time it is not possible to have a sensible conversation about how the cosmology of time influenced the Bible. Neil seems to think I am engaged in confirmation bias just because I understand that time is real.

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 2:43 pm
by neilgodfrey
Robert Tulip wrote:
neilgodfrey wrote:all you are engaging in is confirmation bias, and when I have demonstrated that your model of how time is conceptualized seasonally etc is cultural and local, not universal.
This comment refers to an exchange at viewtopic.php?p=9836#p9836
Geez Robert -- if you are going to respond to a comment of mine then how about keeping it in the thread where I made it. What's this jumping over here to address a point I made somewhere else? My first impulse was to mis-read your opening lines because I could not imagine why you would be saying something I said was referring to another thread.

It's surely appropriate that I respond not here but in the thread where I made the point.

Are you just taking a shot-gun approach to blast at me at every place my name appears? You are also permitted to address me and not talk about me as if I am out of the room. That's kinda a bit more polite, don't you think?

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 3:52 pm
by Stephan Huller
Neil

I feel for you. I think the point Robert is making can be summed up with the formula - the loaves and fishes represent astrotheology because the loaves and fishes represent astrotheology. I don't know how anyone can 'discuss' an approach like this. I think it is safe to assume that the numbers are likely mystical references to something. But why does it have to be astrotheology? Why couldn't it be a harmonic relationship of some kind - i.e. Pythagoreanism. On the same note it might be some sort of gematria. I don't know why Robert has to insist that we are dealing with astro-theology when I can't see any relationship between bread and the zodiac.

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 3:54 pm
by Peter Kirby
And, on occasion, loaves and fish were eaten in the ancient Mediterranean, symbolizing... their food.

Re: Loaves and Fishes

Posted: Sun May 11, 2014 7:50 pm
by neilgodfrey
Stephan Huller wrote:Neil

I feel for you. I think the point Robert is making can be summed up with the formula - the loaves and fishes represent astrotheology because the loaves and fishes represent astrotheology. I don't know how anyone can 'discuss' an approach like this. I think it is safe to assume that the numbers are likely mystical references to something. But why does it have to be astrotheology? Why couldn't it be a harmonic relationship of some kind - i.e. Pythagoreanism. On the same note it might be some sort of gematria. I don't know why Robert has to insist that we are dealing with astro-theology when I can't see any relationship between bread and the zodiac.
The eastern horizon was pointing to the sign of Taurus at the moment and place of my birth so my dna was stamped with inbuilt persistence. The quest continues till Robert clearly and unambiguously responds to and engages in a reasoned discussion of some fundamental questions, preferably without sarcasm or other form of personal attack.