Likewise, you'd have to convince me you're not. That's the very basis of scepticism. Again, I grant that I may have misjudged you, but I'm still hearing the words of a zealot. You may not be. But for now, I guess I'm the Han Solo to your Obi-Wan, "I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything."
If by zealot you mean my zeal is overdone and harmful to my cause, then it is entirely possible that that is what it looks like. But it's certainly not mindless. I am a very sceptical person myself by nature, fond of logic, applying Occam's razor and studying history, and the Bible's constant insistence on evidence and rational, sober judgement was what appealed to me initially. Of all the arguments for Christianity (and I've seen over a hundred), the Christian view is either one of a number of competing explanations or the most plausible one.
I guess this is correct, but only for the most uncritical, unrational follower. Wouldn't the why be obvious to anyone that is curious about his Faith?
Yeah this was perhaps not the best review to post. You need to have read most of J.P.'s stuff to know where he's coming from. His Challenge to Critics is possibly a better place to start (although not specific to Ehrman).
Christians don't have (what I consider) to be the greatest strength of Islam, that is, the Bible, unlike the Quran, is not the absolute, immutable, untranslatable Word of God.
Excellent point. It is also a weakness though. When someone comes to me and says "I have the revealed word of God" (which is pretty much what the Prophet said to his early converts) then I have to trust that he's not lying or misled. I'm also going to be doubly sceptical if this revealing process was something hidden or secret since there's no way to cross-check it. And while the Qu'uran enjoys the reputation of being the absolute, immutable Word of God, it fails two of my most important tests as a sceptic: can I see its history as a living document to check for any changes, and is it internally consistent? The first answer is no - I'm not allowed to check with the earliest extant copies and the second answer is also no - there seems to be a system of abrogation where Allah overrules his previous statements with new and contradictory ones. And I don't mean a progressive method of revelation like the one used in the Bible - I mean direct contradictory statements.
Its history is fascinating none-the-less, but it is absolutely written by men, with or without His help, and men are fallible or liars.
Human authorship is one of the characteristics of historical documents though because Christianity is inextricably bound up with events in space-time history. And like all historical documents there are standard procedures for testing for fallibility and lying. You can test the NT documents for anything you like: their basic integrity, their history of changes, their reliability in describing historical events, their reliability of transmission, their authors and each one's purpose, their emphasis on eyewitness testimony - anything.
Christianity is a good case study of How Not to Start A Religion given the historical context of the ancient near East: there's emphasis on questioning and evidence, it demands behaviour, places no stock on traditional worship, it's inclusive, classless and sexless, relies on women and country bumpkins as key witnesses and is highly vulnerable to public disproof of any of its key claims. It even has direct links to famous people of the day: Herod, Pilate, The Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, Caesar Agrippa II. If you're going to make claims that are likely to be cross-checked across the known world then you're really sticking your neck out to include the major rulers and authorities of the day. There is no way it could have survived that environment without solid historical evidence for the resurrection to back it up.
I'm surprised you've not heard of Ehrman. If you are such a scholar, I would imagine you would be aware of other published scholars.
I have now - currently reading as much as I can by him and on him. And I'm sure you're diligently studying the New Testament too:)
If you weren't lazy, you could have just Googled him.
I did get around to Googling him thanks. It takes thirty seconds to post "lol the b1bl3 is a myth!" and about five hours to reply to it.
I caught him on Fresh Air and enjoyed it. You can find it on the web if you're interested in his thoughts on "what hangs together". Also, you can get a more nuanced point of view from his papers/lectures. I'd say, head on back to your seminary, I bet they can get them for you (if you are actually interested in skeptical textualism and what not).
I may have misjudged your comments, but it sounds to me like you already know what you want to know ("onus is on the skeptic"!?!).
Unfortunately yes. The sceptic who challenges me has to try and convince me I'm hallucinating about twenty years of answered prayer. But if he's going to post nonsense about the historical nature of my faith in space-time history then I'm going to research and reply.
You are equationg belief with faith. Big difference!
And why should I listen to your definition?
And you are positing a "devine being" to construct an arbitrary nonsense scale.
No, I'm claiming that if a divine being wanted to communicate with man then the most accessible way is through natural language and historical events.
"If you want to claim the New Testament documents (for sake of example) are riddled with errors and personal beliefs, then you need to come up with reasonable alternatives for the events they describe,...." Sorry, that is not the way logic works, IMO. There is an important difference between documents written at the time of an event and those written several centuries after an event.
Centuries? The NT was complete in its present form as early as 100 AD and the majority of the writings that comprise it were already circulating 30-40 years before this. Much of the NT is historical narrative so it's easy to cross-check with other historians and archeaological evidence.
In addition, the "bible" is a collection of writings selected by a panel of church heirarchy (Council of Nicene 300 - 400 AD?) that determined which writings were to be included in the bible and which were left out.
A common misconception. Here is a fuller description.
The statement " But when we have tens of thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts of this man Jesus dated from just a few years after he lived,..." is simply not true.
Sure it is. The NT describes historical events from the point of view of eyewitnesses. And yes there are 24 000 copies extant. I'll leave out the 80-odd thousand quoted fragments in other writings for simplicity.
Finally, I am not an athiest. I am a nontheist. It is silly to argue the the existance or non-existance of a god. If you need to believe in one, more power to you. Enjoy.
I don't need to believe in a God - I'm simply compelled to trust this extraordinary man's claims based on a thorough examination of all the available evidence. You are welcome to call my claims silly but you haven't shown a scrap of evidence for doing so. In short, you seem to have a great deal of faith.
Are you prepared to outline proof of all these things? Are you prepared to outline proof of the thousands of other mythical figures people have believed in over time? By your own reasoning, the onus is on you, after all.
My position is that I am working from the available evidence that is there: eyewitness accounts and some extra-biblical corroboration from hostile sources (sparse but significant) of these events in space-time history using - very importantly - the same standards and procedures that are applied to all ancient literature and history. It's dead easy to dismiss the NT as fable or as a myth which gew over time or even as fiction but scholars want some supporting evidence as to how this happened otherwise they won't take you seriously. On the face of them, the documents seem to be straightforward eyewitness accounts of an extraordinary individual who claimed that he was God and who rose from the dead. Trying to paint them as anything else requires jumping through all sorts of hoops and making guesses based on no evidence. In other words, it requires a great deal of blind faith:)
Alternatively, how about we use the practice rational people have been using for ages, which is that extraordinary claims (such as "jesus was a miracle worker of some sort") require extraordinary evidence.
Couldn't agree more. So do the NT documents which are full of exhortations for people to use their minds and their eyes and to go check things out for themselves.
If, on the other hand, you're attempting to submit the bible as such evidence, may I ask how you know it's credible?
Good question which normally takes hours to respond to:) In brief:
* the integrity of the documents themselves * their survival through history * their unflattering portrayal of the protagonists, including the authors themselves * their eyewitness-like nature * their current track record in describing "impossible" events, people and places which turned up once we dug enough - IOW their historical reliability which is second to none
If you say you have faith, then fine, I can respect that and I can respect your beliefs. But don't expect me to have the same faith.
Interestingly the NT has no concept of blind faith. The Greek word means "assurance based on past performances." The Bible is ruthless about evidence (which is cool for a sceptic like me) and dismissive about nonsense (astrology for example). I am really not the sort of person who can put my trust in something unless I've thoroughly checked it out. I've spent years thoroughly checking out the NT (OT is next) and it hangs together. If you want a good, if slightly dated, introduction to the subject, FF Bruce's book is available for free here.
Like the ID proponents that change their argument about every 30 seconds because it doesn't hold water?
I'm not an ID fan at all. It's poor science (if at all) and it's even worse theology.
Or like the people that stick to their well-documented contradictions listed in the Bible that have been demonstrated repeatedly for hundreds of years?
As I've said to others before, if you want to understand the message of the Bible, then the sweets are on the bottom shelf - it's very straighforward. If you want to be a critic of the text on the other hand then I am going to ignore you unless you can prove to me that you have serious credentials in the study of ancient literature. The Bible is written to all sorts of people by all sorts of people at different times and in different languages. Most of the "contradictions" I've heard seem to be no better than pre-school attempts to compare different passages with each other, showing ignorance of context, style, authorship, translation issues and culture. The first Google hit for "bible contradictions" is a prime example of this.
Er, no it's not. Just look at the number of gullible fools that treat a 2000-year-old fable as absolute truth today. Assuming gullibility is roughly equivalent today (ie: the null nypothesis - nothing has changed) it ought to be relatively easy to convince people of falsehoods. Today we regard magicians tricks as sleight-of-hand, but historically they had far more credibility.
You fail the 30-second test. The 1st century world was an extremely sceptical time in history. It was also full of surprisingly well educated people. The NT documents have nothing in common with fables since they are just eyewitness accounts written by ordinary men - doctors, tax collectors, rabbis, fishermen. The accounts keep intact all the embarrasing moments from the authors' interactions with Jesus and don't attempt to water down the hard or difficult to swallow bits at all. To make a good case for it all being a fable you would have to:
prove that the most religious people on earth at the time (Israel) had a culture of fables from the available literature at the time
show that many people put stock in such fables
trace how the fable evolved over time using the available documents and their dates
show how the fable was adapted and localised into the cultures it touched
In Luke's case you would have to show why and how the most reliable ancient historian who ever lived introduced elements of fable into his narratives. Come to think of it, you would have to explain every single confirmed historical detail from the NT. Fables typically don't do that - they are inspecific enough to be assimilated into any culture
I haven't plucked these rules from the air - this is one of the standard methods for dealing with all ancient literature.
Add in the fact that we have a local native preaching about a new kingdom (which would resound well in the ears of an oppressed populace)
Then they must have been sorely disappointed. Jesus's teachings about a new Kingdom said nothing about overthrowing the Romans or taking back the land. The kingdom he spoke about seemed to be radically different in nature from anything they'd ever heard.
and his credibility wouldn't even have to be that high - people are always more willing to believe things they want to believe...
The New Testament (and the OT for that matter) is surprisingly rigorous about proof and correspondingly dismissive about people who believe in nonsense. Its readers and protagonists are constantly told to check the claims against their own eyes, their own experiences and the eyewitness testimony of others.
And then there's the fact that most of the stories were made up ^W^W scribed much later - well after the death of this man, even if he ever existed.
You can claim things like this but you'll just be laughed at by scholars of ancient literature. We have documented eyewitness accounts of Jesus dated from just a few years after he lived and tens of thousands more from slightly later. None of them show signs of tampering or accretion or embellishment. Not only that but you would have to explain away the Roman and Jewish mentions of Jesus and of Christians and show how they also got conned by this fable that spread across the world.
Organised religion (at least in the West) is simply a power structure where one (wo)man attempts to gain power over peers by promising them fantastic gains/terrible suffering after death.
Have to agree with you there. That's why Christianity was - and is - so radical. This extraordinary individual says "you want life? You want deep meaningful relationships? A restored relationship with God? Then trust me." No need for holy places, holy objects or special ceremonies.
It uses a 2000-year-old ("well it *must* be true") book written by corrupt church "leaders" (have you ever *read* about early church leaders??) to cow the common people into doing as they are told. It's nothing more than that.
Excepting the miracles? So you're saying the Bible hasn't been proven wrong except for the places that it's been proven wrong that don't count?
And your proof that miracles don't happen is... what exactly? That looks like an a priori assumption to me. It is impossible to do formal criticism of the New Testament documents and other corroborating literature without coming to the conclusion that Jesus, whatever people thought of him, was a miracle worker of some sort. The onus is on the sceptic to come up with an alternative explanation that holds water for more than 30 seconds.
Read the book "Misquoting Jesus : the story behind who changed the Bible and why" by Bart D. Ehrman and you'll find a whole bunch of places that the Bible is "wrong" or at least added onto by scribes. Frex: that story of Jesus telling the mob to "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" was not in the original texts.
Given that there are over twenty thousand full or partial copies of the New Testament in existence dated from very early to somewhat later, we know more about how they evolved than any other ancient literature in history. They've survived intact. I can think of two cases where scribes have added a passage - the end of Mark and the passage in John you quote above (hardly a "whole bunch of places") - and all translations that I've seen clearly mark them as not being in the original manuscripts. I know nothing about Bart D Ehrman but if he's trying to claim that scribes were involved in widespread modification of the NT documents, then he deserves to be the laughing stock of experts in ancient documents.
I've always wondered why the hell we can't prove or disprove the moon landing myth by just pointing a friggin' telescope at it? I mean, if there is any such astronaut junk...couldn't the Hubble or even some small terrestrial telescope pick it out? There's no wind on the moon, so shouldn't the footprints and tire tracks still be visible? Did Neil Armstrong leave the flag planted or bring it back?
It's a question of scale and resolving power. Current telescopes simply do not have the resolution to pick out objects a few feet across from nearly a quarter of a million miles away. However, there are a couple of retroreflector arrays the astronauts left behind that bounce lasers back quite happily, allowing us to measure the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon. (Apparently the Moon is drifting away from us by a couple of centimeters per year). Apart from anything else, these arrays represent a serious problem to anyone who believes the moon landings were faked.
Remember the open letter to hobbyists [blinkenlights.com] that Gates penned on the third of February, nineteen seventy six?
Interesting - tomorrow is the thirtieth anniversary of the open letter. Bill whining about people copying what he wrote on stolen computer time. Fast forward to 2006 and he's still whining about people copying what he's stolen:)
Uh huh. Reminds me of the most chilling quote from Sin City. This was the bit that bothered me the most - way more than the visually gruesome scenes -mainly because it's so true today:
"Power doesn't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you've got everyone agreeing what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got them by the balls" - Senator Roark
I can not buy any "argument from authority" dealing with any subject.
Actually, we all do every day to a greater or lesser extent. We believe the authoritative voice from the man in the traffic helicopter because he has a better view and that's his job. I believe Einstein was telling the truth about General Relativity. I believe and respect the opinions of true experts all the time but here's the rub: only when the evidence backs up what they say.
The fallacious argument from authority goes something like this: A says X. A is respected. Therefore X is true. Of course the fact that A is respected has nothing whatever to do with whether X is true or not. But if A has spent a lifetime studying everything about X then I'm going to treat his opinion with a great deal more respect, especially if he can show evidence to back up what he's been saying.
Also, in any religion is the fact that men (humans) have written the "holy" books. To believe they (men) have written down the absolute truth not subject to personal beliefs, is the greatest fallicy.
There's a scale you can construct of all the possible ways a divine being could communicate with humans. At the one end, he could reveal himself directly and personally in his full glory to everyone on Earth. At the other end would be some kind of formal mathematical method using symbols. The problem with the personal revealing is that we can't actually cope with that kind of contact with the supernatural, and the problem with the other is that it's not accessible. In the middle is natural language backed up by events in space-time history - the most accessible to anyone and the most effective way of communicating. I think the direct authorship of divine texts is actually the least reliable of all the methods because you then have to trust someone (normally a single person) who is claiming that God appeared to them and "here's what he says guys!"
If you want to claim the New Testament documents (for sake of example) are riddled with errors and personal beliefs, then you need to come up with reasonable alternatives for the events they describe, most notably that an extraordinary man who claimed to be God incarnate lived in 1st century Palestine, was executed for blasphemy and rose from the dead. I'm not saying there aren't difficult bits - far from it - but in each case of doubt the Christian explanation is either one of a number of competing ones or the most plausible explanation.
Just being knowledgable in a subject does not preclude fallicy from existing.
Of course not. But you're applying a higher standard to the Bible than to other ancient literature. There are widely accepted methods for historians, textual experts and archaeologists which apply to all ancient documents. The Bible is no different. Nobody is silly enough to claim Julius Caesar didn't exist, despite the fact that we have only a handful of copies of his Gallic Wars that date from nearly a millenium after he lived. But when we have tens of thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts of this man Jesus dated from just a few years after he lived, suddenly everyone comes up with all kinds of excuses.
Wow, that was great. You managed to say it didn't matter because the two were differant langauges and as such they can't be comaired for your needs.
I didn't even remotely claim that. Read what I said again.
Using the same logic then the intir OT must be thrown out from this debate. Which means that JC can't be who he claims he is because there is no OT to support the need for a new King.
Except you haven't used logic at all. I made the point (very clearly I thought) that the two verses were so vastly different in style, context, audience and tone as to be not worth comparing. One is part of a treaty between God and Israel - and God and Israel only, the other is a saying of Jesus; one is a law specifically repudiating the behaviour of other cultures of the day, the other is the gospel in a nutshell. Like I said, if you try this kindegarten technique with other ancient literature you will be laughed at by historians and archaeologists alike.
Ok so that we don't repeat my same error lets try the same laguange. Luke 3:23+ vs Matthew 1:17+
There are plenty of ways of reconciling the two genealogies of Jesus as given in these two passages. And unsurprisingly the vast majority of so-called problems disappear when you realise that a) Matthew's is written in a specific Jewish rote style for easy memorising b) the word "begat" really means progenitor which leaves room for gaps (Jewish genealogies are rarely exhaustive) and c) a proper understanding of how Levirate marriage worked in those days. Besides, Luke is the most accurate and reliable historian who ever lived - bar none. Time and time again he makes claims that could not possibly have been true - until we dug up the relevant inscription or unearthed the right documents. Historians have to be very very cautious about doubting him given his track record.
He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him saying "Go up you baldhead! Go up you baldhead!" And he turned around and when he saw them he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them.
First point: the Hebrew does not say "small boys". It's a bad translation. Isaac, Joseph and even men in the army in 1 Kings were described using this term - all were demonstrably older than what we think of as "small boys" - as much as thirty years old! Secondly, Elisha was not some mean old man. He was only in his mid-twenties when this incident happened. There's also more to the "baldy" insult than meets the eye since prophets went around with their heads covered. How could the crowd have known whether he was bald or not?
Most importantly is the context of the incident. Elisha has just performed a miracle in the name of the Lord in nearby Jericho. A few miles away - in what was pretty much the centre of Baal worship in those days - he encounters a gang of hoodlums who deliberately insult him. It's not unlikely that this was an organised riot against the prophet. If forty-two were mauled, how many were in the crowd to begin with? A hundred? Five hundred? We don't know but it was certainly more than the number that were mauled.
Already you can see how far this is from the usual objection. It normally goes something like: "Mean old man Elisha was jeered by some kids, lost his temper and arbitrarily called on some bears to teach them a lesson. How can I respect someone like that?"
It's much more likely to be this: "Elisha performs a miracle at Jericho. Word of this gets to the local hotbed of Baal worship on a few miles away and there's an organised riot of at least fifty young men (possibly prophets of Baal) that opposes him as he passes by. He curses them for their unbelief and opposition and God pronounces the judgement."
If you want to have your criticism of ancient documents taken seriously, you need years of experience in (among other discplines): the ancient languages those documents were written in, the archaeology of the time, historical method, at least some sociology and hopefully some textual analysis skills. The message of the Bible can be understood by anybody (intentionally I believe) but if you want to be a critic of the text then you need to have a working knowledge of all of the above areas of research as well as a firm grasp of the standards and methods by which all ancient literature is treated.
Unfortunately your "fallacy" fails even a cursory examination. The two verses are written in different languages at different times in different styles to different audiences about different things. I suppose if you try hard enough you could find something contradictory (if you try and do the same with other ancient documents, modern scholars will treat your findings with contempt).
Deut 24:16 says (ESV): "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."
The whole book of Deuteronomy is a vassal treaty between a stronger party (God) and a weaker one (Israel) that follows the exact form of other treaties of the day. The parties are introduced, conditions are laid down for the period of rule, expected behaviour and punishments for deviations are discussed, and "out clauses" are specified. 24:16 is one of the miscellaneous laws that Israel were expected to obey and it emphasises that personal responsibility for capital crimes remains with the person and the person alone - unlike other cultures of the day where the whole family was slaughtered along with the miscreant. Understanding all the nuances of this law takes years: you need to know the history of Israel, the form of vassal treaties, the structure and purpose of OT Law and you should at least be able to read it in the original. But from the translation and the context, it's pretty clear: if you're guilty of a capital offence, you are the one that dies - and no-one else.
John 3:16 (ESV) says : "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
OK, I see the "fallacy." Sons are not to be put to death for the sins of the fathers! Is that it? Well there's a major problem with that view and it is this: Jesus was executed in accordance with this law! Neither his mother nor earthly father nor any of his brothers were killed when he was found guilty of blasphemy. He and he alone went to the cross.
If you're trying to say claim that the laws God gave to Israel during the time of Moses now suddenly apply to God himself and his relationship with his Son 1200-odd years later, then you a) haven't listened during vassal treaty class (treaty rules NEVER apply in reverse) b) need to point out evidence of God the Father's "sin" somewhere (Jesus is dying for the sin of his Father remember?) and c) have possibly missed the point that Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy but voluntarily laid down his life on behalf of others.
Conclusion: not only is this not a valid objection, it actually sheds some light in the other direction: whatever the Jewish leadership of the day did wrong, they were certainly not guilty of violating the Mosaic law on personal responsibility when they handed Christ over to the Romans to be executed.
OK, you were in a situation where hypothermia was a clear risk (hiking? mountain climbing?) and could be aware of the onset of symptoms. I thought I had escaped to a safe environment! Not...
I can vouch for this experience 100%. After a long, cold and very wet route march across the South Downs (a particular Brit Army training exercise), I plonked myself down in a window seat on the bus to take us back to barracks and passed out from exhaustion. Some moron opened that window while I was sleeping with the result that I experienced 50mph windchill for the next two hours in wet clothing while completely immobile - no need for snow or 30 below zero weather.
When we go to the other end, I vaguely remember feeling warm and comfortable but strangely unable to move. I also remember being surrounded by clearly panicking instructors who were bellowing at me not to go to sleep while they manhandled me to the hospital. It was very surreal - like you're watching yourself from outside with a mixture of detachment and fascination. Mountaineering tales I've read describe the same thing: a sort of pleasant warmth even while you're looking at your frostbitten fingers and a very strong desire to take a "short nap."
Death by freezing would have felt pleasant I'm sure. On the other hand, being warmed up slowly was the worst experience I've ever had bar none because then you start feeling how cold you really are - and the feeling continues for days. I can't remember what my core temperature had dropped to but it was dangerously low.
Maybe because he came up with it? It's his joke, he made it up and he's entitled to be credited as the original author of it. Kind of reminds me of the snotty kid who tried passing off the BOFH archives as his own. I'm not accusing the OP of that sentiment but credit where credit was due would have been nice.
P.S. Larry is correct - my mail archive shows he came up with it at the latest in 2000.
Well, fuck you too, buddy. Merry Christmas to your ignorant ass.
Tsk tsk. You're taking this way too personally.
I'm sure it's easy to copypaste some strawman argument containing hilarious phrases such as "pointy-haired boss" which the children will find irresistible, since they know nothing about the actual merits of the arguments, having never managed anyone, let alone a group of people who work together to achieve objectives such as saving people's lives, or even less noble objectives such as creating a software platform to aid the collective research efforts of thousands of researchers.
I rest my case. The above paragraph is one sentence! Obviously working with Java's crufty verbosity has affected your writing. I'd suggest taking a course in a more pithy language. By the way, Graham's argument is not a strawman: he's made it clear over a few different essays that because programming languages vary in power, smart coders who use more powerful languages can code circles around those using Java. Also if you're going to drag in logical fallacies then I need to point out yours too: "saving people's lives" and "aiding... thousands of researchers" has nothing whatever to do with the merits of Java versus other programming languages. It's an emotional red herring.
I have used hundreds of thousands of dollars on Python code which the author believed to be really maintainable and work really well, but in the reality-based world turned to be such crap that the whole team, including me, had to work a breakneck pace to rewrite it in Java, which has such incredible features as working threading support, no Global Interpreter Lock, actual Oracle and LDAP support that doesn't leak memory like anything, and isn't 20 times slower than the Oracle and LDAP support in other languages, no monkey patches (oh yeah, Python coders seem to think that it's SUCH a good idea to monkeypatch others' code, since after all, SMART people should know without any documentation what's going on, and documentating code is useless anyway, people should just go in and read all of those millions of lines of code if they want to know what's going on) and, you know, clear and accurate documentation and HORDES of pre-existing components which make your life so much easier, if only you're not infected with the dreaded Python community NIH disease.
Sheesh, I thought the previous sentence was bad but this one takes the cake. Full stops are your friend. So is coherence. Some answers:
If you paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for a component written by an idiot in a language your team doesn't use, then you're the bigger idiot.
Python does have working threads and the GIL has never bitten me when working with multi-threaded libraries in C.
Bummer about Oracle. Try Postgres instead. It's cheaper and better.
Monkeypatching is considered harmful by any Python programmer worth his salt.
Python comes with batteries included. Of all communities it's the one with the *least* amount of NIH syndome.
Java does have an additional useful feature: because of its mandatory coding practises and standards it's pretty easy to spot when an amateur has written something really broken, and contain the problem to those components which the amateur has touched. Perhaps this is what has happened to you?
Entirely possible. But I've seen good Java - really top of the line guru-doing-an-exercise-proposed-by-Martin_Fowler-s tandard type Java - and it was just plain ugly because the language is just plain ugly.
I've used, in production, Python, Perl, C, C++, Pascal, Java, x86 assembly, a little AutoLisp, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of lines. (The C code I have out there is pretty crappy, for which I apologise, but I was an amateur and thought of my work much as you seem to think now.)
Can't recall making any comments about your work or even you personally. *Checks* - nope. You
Slashdot Mirror
Likewise, you'd have to convince me you're not. That's the very basis of scepticism. Again, I grant that I may have misjudged you, but I'm still hearing the words of a zealot. You may not be. But for now, I guess I'm the Han Solo to your Obi-Wan, "I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything."
If by zealot you mean my zeal is overdone and harmful to my cause, then it is entirely possible that that is what it looks like. But it's certainly not mindless. I am a very sceptical person myself by nature, fond of logic, applying Occam's razor and studying history, and the Bible's constant insistence on evidence and rational, sober judgement was what appealed to me initially. Of all the arguments for Christianity (and I've seen over a hundred), the Christian view is either one of a number of competing explanations or the most plausible one.
I guess this is correct, but only for the most uncritical, unrational follower. Wouldn't the why be obvious to anyone that is curious about his Faith?
Yeah this was perhaps not the best review to post. You need to have read most of J.P.'s stuff to know where he's coming from. His Challenge to Critics is possibly a better place to start (although not specific to Ehrman).
Christians don't have (what I consider) to be the greatest strength of Islam, that is, the Bible, unlike the Quran, is not the absolute, immutable, untranslatable Word of God.
Excellent point. It is also a weakness though. When someone comes to me and says "I have the revealed word of God" (which is pretty much what the Prophet said to his early converts) then I have to trust that he's not lying or misled. I'm also going to be doubly sceptical if this revealing process was something hidden or secret since there's no way to cross-check it. And while the Qu'uran enjoys the reputation of being the absolute, immutable Word of God, it fails two of my most important tests as a sceptic: can I see its history as a living document to check for any changes, and is it internally consistent? The first answer is no - I'm not allowed to check with the earliest extant copies and the second answer is also no - there seems to be a system of abrogation where Allah overrules his previous statements with new and contradictory ones. And I don't mean a progressive method of revelation like the one used in the Bible - I mean direct contradictory statements.
Its history is fascinating none-the-less, but it is absolutely written by men, with or without His help, and men are fallible or liars.
Human authorship is one of the characteristics of historical documents though because Christianity is inextricably bound up with events in space-time history. And like all historical documents there are standard procedures for testing for fallibility and lying. You can test the NT documents for anything you like: their basic integrity, their history of changes, their reliability in describing historical events, their reliability of transmission, their authors and each one's purpose, their emphasis on eyewitness testimony - anything.
Christianity is a good case study of How Not to Start A Religion given the historical context of the ancient near East: there's emphasis on questioning and evidence, it demands behaviour, places no stock on traditional worship, it's inclusive, classless and sexless, relies on women and country bumpkins as key witnesses and is highly vulnerable to public disproof of any of its key claims. It even has direct links to famous people of the day: Herod, Pilate, The Sanhedrin, Joseph of Arimathea, Caesar Agrippa II. If you're going to make claims that are likely to be cross-checked across the known world then you're really sticking your neck out to include the major rulers and authorities of the day. There is no way it could have survived that environment without solid historical evidence for the resurrection to back it up.
What happens if you kick the crap out of someone and they hit their head on the ground and die.
You get shortlisted for intensive training in the war against the Buggers?
I'm surprised you've not heard of Ehrman. If you are such a scholar, I would imagine you would be aware of other published scholars.
:)
I have now - currently reading as much as I can by him and on him. And I'm sure you're diligently studying the New Testament too
If you weren't lazy, you could have just Googled him.
I did get around to Googling him thanks. It takes thirty seconds to post "lol the b1bl3 is a myth!" and about five hours to reply to it.
I caught him on Fresh Air and enjoyed it. You can find it on the web if you're interested in his thoughts on "what hangs together". Also, you can get a more nuanced point of view from his papers/lectures. I'd say, head on back to your seminary, I bet they can get them for you (if you are actually interested in skeptical textualism and what not).
Well, so far so not very good.
I may have misjudged your comments, but it sounds to me like you already know what you want to know ("onus is on the skeptic"!?!).
Unfortunately yes. The sceptic who challenges me has to try and convince me I'm hallucinating about twenty years of answered prayer. But if he's going to post nonsense about the historical nature of my faith in space-time history then I'm going to research and reply.
You are equationg belief with faith. Big difference!
And why should I listen to your definition?
And you are positing a "devine being" to construct an arbitrary nonsense scale.
No, I'm claiming that if a divine being wanted to communicate with man then the most accessible way is through natural language and historical events.
"If you want to claim the New Testament documents (for sake of example) are riddled with errors and personal beliefs, then you need to come up with reasonable alternatives for the events they describe,...."
Sorry, that is not the way logic works, IMO.
There is an important difference between documents written at the time of an event and those written several centuries after an event.
Centuries? The NT was complete in its present form as early as 100 AD and the majority of the writings that comprise it were already circulating 30-40 years before this. Much of the NT is historical narrative so it's easy to cross-check with other historians and archeaological evidence.
In addition, the "bible" is a collection of writings selected by a panel of church heirarchy (Council of Nicene 300 - 400 AD?) that determined which writings were to be included in the bible and which were left out.
A common misconception. Here is a fuller description.
The statement " But when we have tens of thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts of this man Jesus dated from just a few years after he lived,..." is simply not true.
Sure it is. The NT describes historical events from the point of view of eyewitnesses. And yes there are 24 000 copies extant. I'll leave out the 80-odd thousand quoted fragments in other writings for simplicity.
Finally, I am not an athiest. I am a nontheist. It is silly to argue the the existance or non-existance of a god. If you need to believe in one, more power to you. Enjoy.
I don't need to believe in a God - I'm simply compelled to trust this extraordinary man's claims based on a thorough examination of all the available evidence. You are welcome to call my claims silly but you haven't shown a scrap of evidence for doing so. In short, you seem to have a great deal of faith.
Are you prepared to outline proof of all these things? Are you prepared to outline proof of the thousands of other mythical figures people have believed in over time? By your own reasoning, the onus is on you, after all.
:)
:) In brief:
My position is that I am working from the available evidence that is there: eyewitness accounts and some extra-biblical corroboration from hostile sources (sparse but significant) of these events in space-time history using - very importantly - the same standards and procedures that are applied to all ancient literature and history. It's dead easy to dismiss the NT as fable or as a myth which gew over time or even as fiction but scholars want some supporting evidence as to how this happened otherwise they won't take you seriously.
On the face of them, the documents seem to be straightforward eyewitness accounts of an extraordinary individual who claimed that he was God and who rose from the dead. Trying to paint them as anything else requires jumping through all sorts of hoops and making guesses based on no evidence. In other words, it requires a great deal of blind faith
Alternatively, how about we use the practice rational people have been using for ages, which is that extraordinary claims (such as "jesus was a miracle worker of some sort") require extraordinary evidence.
Couldn't agree more. So do the NT documents which are full of exhortations for people to use their minds and their eyes and to go check things out for themselves.
If, on the other hand, you're attempting to submit the bible as such evidence, may I ask how you know it's credible?
Good question which normally takes hours to respond to
* the integrity of the documents themselves
* their survival through history
* their unflattering portrayal of the protagonists, including the authors themselves
* their eyewitness-like nature
* their current track record in describing "impossible" events, people and places which turned up once we dug enough - IOW their historical reliability which is second to none
If you say you have faith, then fine, I can respect that and I can respect your beliefs. But don't expect me to have the same faith.
Interestingly the NT has no concept of blind faith. The Greek word means "assurance based on past performances." The Bible is ruthless about evidence (which is cool for a sceptic like me) and dismissive about nonsense (astrology for example). I am really not the sort of person who can put my trust in something unless I've thoroughly checked it out. I've spent years thoroughly checking out the NT (OT is next) and it hangs together.
If you want a good, if slightly dated, introduction to the subject, FF Bruce's book is available for free here.
Like the ID proponents that change their argument about every 30 seconds because it doesn't hold water?
I'm not an ID fan at all. It's poor science (if at all) and it's even worse theology.
Or like the people that stick to their well-documented contradictions listed in the Bible that have been demonstrated repeatedly for hundreds of years?
As I've said to others before, if you want to understand the message of the Bible, then the sweets are on the bottom shelf - it's very straighforward. If you want to be a critic of the text on the other hand then I am going to ignore you unless you can prove to me that you have serious credentials in the study of ancient literature. The Bible is written to all sorts of people by all sorts of people at different times and in different languages. Most of the "contradictions" I've heard seem to be no better than pre-school attempts to compare different passages with each other, showing ignorance of context, style, authorship, translation issues and culture. The first Google hit for "bible contradictions" is a prime example of this.
You fail the 30-second test. The 1st century world was an extremely sceptical time in history. It was also full of surprisingly well educated people. The NT documents have nothing in common with fables since they are just eyewitness accounts written by ordinary men - doctors, tax collectors, rabbis, fishermen. The accounts keep intact all the embarrasing moments from the authors' interactions with Jesus and don't attempt to water down the hard or difficult to swallow bits at all. To make a good case for it all being a fable you would have to:
I haven't plucked these rules from the air - this is one of the standard methods for dealing with all ancient literature.
Add in the fact that we have a local native preaching about a new kingdom (which would resound well in the ears of an oppressed populace)
Then they must have been sorely disappointed. Jesus's teachings about a new Kingdom said nothing about overthrowing the Romans or taking back the land. The kingdom he spoke about seemed to be radically different in nature from anything they'd ever heard.
and his credibility wouldn't even have to be that high - people are always more willing to believe things they want to believe...
The New Testament (and the OT for that matter) is surprisingly rigorous about proof and correspondingly dismissive about people who believe in nonsense. Its readers and protagonists are constantly told to check the claims against their own eyes, their own experiences and the eyewitness testimony of others.
And then there's the fact that most of the stories were made up ^W^W scribed much later - well after the death of this man, even if he ever existed.
You can claim things like this but you'll just be laughed at by scholars of ancient literature. We have documented eyewitness accounts of Jesus dated from just a few years after he lived and tens of thousands more from slightly later. None of them show signs of tampering or accretion or embellishment. Not only that but you would have to explain away the Roman and Jewish mentions of Jesus and of Christians and show how they also got conned by this fable that spread across the world.
Organised religion (at least in the West) is simply a power structure where one (wo)man attempts to gain power over peers by promising them fantastic gains/terrible suffering after death.
Have to agree with you there. That's why Christianity was - and is - so radical. This extraordinary individual says "you want life? You want deep meaningful relationships? A restored relationship with God? Then trust me." No need for holy places, holy objects or special ceremonies.
It uses a 2000-year-old ("well it *must* be true") book written by corrupt church "leaders" (have you ever *read* about early church leaders??) to cow the common people into doing as they are told. It's nothing more than that.
Challenge: tr
Excepting the miracles?
... what exactly? That looks like an a priori assumption to me. It is impossible to do formal criticism of the New Testament documents and other corroborating literature without coming to the conclusion that Jesus, whatever people thought of him, was a miracle worker of some sort. The onus is on the sceptic to come up with an alternative explanation that holds water for more than 30 seconds.
So you're saying the Bible hasn't been proven wrong except for the places that it's been proven wrong that don't count?
And your proof that miracles don't happen is
Read the book "Misquoting Jesus : the story behind who changed the Bible and why" by Bart D. Ehrman and you'll find a whole bunch of places that the Bible is "wrong" or at least added onto by scribes.
Frex: that story of Jesus telling the mob to "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" was not in the original texts.
Given that there are over twenty thousand full or partial copies of the New Testament in existence dated from very early to somewhat later, we know more about how they evolved than any other ancient literature in history. They've survived intact. I can think of two cases where scribes have added a passage - the end of Mark and the passage in John you quote above (hardly a "whole bunch of places") - and all translations that I've seen clearly mark them as not being in the original manuscripts. I know nothing about Bart D Ehrman but if he's trying to claim that scribes were involved in widespread modification of the NT documents, then he deserves to be the laughing stock of experts in ancient documents.
I've always wondered why the hell we can't prove or disprove the moon landing myth by just pointing a friggin' telescope at it? I mean, if there is any such astronaut junk...couldn't the Hubble or even some small terrestrial telescope pick it out? There's no wind on the moon, so shouldn't the footprints and tire tracks still be visible? Did Neil Armstrong leave the flag planted or bring it back?
It's a question of scale and resolving power. Current telescopes simply do not have the resolution to pick out objects a few feet across from nearly a quarter of a million miles away. However, there are a couple of retroreflector arrays the astronauts left behind that bounce lasers back quite happily, allowing us to measure the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon. (Apparently the Moon is drifting away from us by a couple of centimeters per year). Apart from anything else, these arrays represent a serious problem to anyone who believes the moon landings were faked.
Now... think back to Blade Runner... All those Ads... Now *That* was cool.
Blade Runner is not a good poster child for product placement.
Remember the open letter to hobbyists [blinkenlights.com] that Gates penned on the third of February, nineteen seventy six?
:)
Interesting - tomorrow is the thirtieth anniversary of the open letter. Bill whining about people copying what he wrote on stolen computer time. Fast forward to 2006 and he's still whining about people copying what he's stolen
Uh huh. Reminds me of the most chilling quote from Sin City. This was the bit that bothered me the most - way more than the visually gruesome scenes -mainly because it's so true today:
"Power doesn't come from a badge or a gun. Power comes from lying. Lying big and getting the whole damn world to play along with you. Once you've got everyone agreeing what they know in their hearts ain't true, you've got them by the balls" - Senator Roark
I can not buy any "argument from authority" dealing with any subject.
Actually, we all do every day to a greater or lesser extent. We believe the authoritative voice from the man in the traffic helicopter because he has a better view and that's his job. I believe Einstein was telling the truth about General Relativity. I believe and respect the opinions of true experts all the time but here's the rub: only when the evidence backs up what they say.
The fallacious argument from authority goes something like this: A says X. A is respected. Therefore X is true. Of course the fact that A is respected has nothing whatever to do with whether X is true or not. But if A has spent a lifetime studying everything about X then I'm going to treat his opinion with a great deal more respect, especially if he can show evidence to back up what he's been saying.
Also, in any religion is the fact that men (humans) have written the "holy" books. To believe they (men) have written down the absolute truth not subject to personal beliefs, is the greatest fallicy.
There's a scale you can construct of all the possible ways a divine being could communicate with humans. At the one end, he could reveal himself directly and personally in his full glory to everyone on Earth. At the other end would be some kind of formal mathematical method using symbols. The problem with the personal revealing is that we can't actually cope with that kind of contact with the supernatural, and the problem with the other is that it's not accessible. In the middle is natural language backed up by events in space-time history - the most accessible to anyone and the most effective way of communicating. I think the direct authorship of divine texts is actually the least reliable of all the methods because you then have to trust someone (normally a single person) who is claiming that God appeared to them and "here's what he says guys!"
If you want to claim the New Testament documents (for sake of example) are riddled with errors and personal beliefs, then you need to come up with reasonable alternatives for the events they describe, most notably that an extraordinary man who claimed to be God incarnate lived in 1st century Palestine, was executed for blasphemy and rose from the dead. I'm not saying there aren't difficult bits - far from it - but in each case of doubt the Christian explanation is either one of a number of competing ones or the most plausible explanation.
Just being knowledgable in a subject does not preclude fallicy from existing.
Of course not. But you're applying a higher standard to the Bible than to other ancient literature. There are widely accepted methods for historians, textual experts and archaeologists which apply to all ancient documents. The Bible is no different. Nobody is silly enough to claim Julius Caesar didn't exist, despite the fact that we have only a handful of copies of his Gallic Wars that date from nearly a millenium after he lived. But when we have tens of thousands of copies of eyewitness accounts of this man Jesus dated from just a few years after he lived, suddenly everyone comes up with all kinds of excuses.
Wow, that was great. You managed to say it didn't matter because the two were differant langauges and as such they can't be comaired for your needs.
I didn't even remotely claim that. Read what I said again.
Using the same logic then the intir OT must be thrown out from this debate. Which means that JC can't be who he claims he is because there is no OT to support the need for a new King.
Except you haven't used logic at all. I made the point (very clearly I thought) that the two verses were so vastly different in style, context, audience and tone as to be not worth comparing. One is part of a treaty between God and Israel - and God and Israel only, the other is a saying of Jesus; one is a law specifically repudiating the behaviour of other cultures of the day, the other is the gospel in a nutshell. Like I said, if you try this kindegarten technique with other ancient literature you will be laughed at by historians and archaeologists alike.
Ok so that we don't repeat my same error lets try the same laguange. Luke 3:23+ vs Matthew 1:17+
There are plenty of ways of reconciling the two genealogies of Jesus as given in these two passages. And unsurprisingly the vast majority of so-called problems disappear when you realise that a) Matthew's is written in a specific Jewish rote style for easy memorising b) the word "begat" really means progenitor which leaves room for gaps (Jewish genealogies are rarely exhaustive) and c) a proper understanding of how Levirate marriage worked in those days. Besides, Luke is the most accurate and reliable historian who ever lived - bar none. Time and time again he makes claims that could not possibly have been true - until we dug up the relevant inscription or unearthed the right documents. Historians have to be very very cautious about doubting him given his track record.
Sure. Heres the passage in question:
He went up from there to Bethel, and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him saying "Go up you baldhead! Go up you baldhead!" And he turned around and when he saw them he cursed them in the name of the Lord. And two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of them.
First point: the Hebrew does not say "small boys". It's a bad translation. Isaac, Joseph and even men in the army in 1 Kings were described using this term - all were demonstrably older than what we think of as "small boys" - as much as thirty years old! Secondly, Elisha was not some mean old man. He was only in his mid-twenties when this incident happened. There's also more to the "baldy" insult than meets the eye since prophets went around with their heads covered. How could the crowd have known whether he was bald or not?
Most importantly is the context of the incident. Elisha has just performed a miracle in the name of the Lord in nearby Jericho. A few miles away - in what was pretty much the centre of Baal worship in those days - he encounters a gang of hoodlums who deliberately insult him. It's not unlikely that this was an organised riot against the prophet. If forty-two were mauled, how many were in the crowd to begin with? A hundred? Five hundred? We don't know but it was certainly more than the number that were mauled.
Already you can see how far this is from the usual objection. It normally goes something like: "Mean old man Elisha was jeered by some kids, lost his temper and arbitrarily called on some bears to teach them a lesson. How can I respect someone like that?"
It's much more likely to be this: "Elisha performs a miracle at Jericho. Word of this gets to the local hotbed of Baal worship on a few miles away and there's an organised riot of at least fifty young men (possibly prophets of Baal) that opposes him as he passes by. He curses them for their unbelief and opposition and God pronounces the judgement."
HTH.
Heh - I was playing that last night on MAME. Works fine and no need to give Disney your money :)
If you want to have your criticism of ancient documents taken seriously, you need years of experience in (among other discplines): the ancient languages those documents were written in, the archaeology of the time, historical method, at least some sociology and hopefully some textual analysis skills. The message of the Bible can be understood by anybody (intentionally I believe) but if you want to be a critic of the text then you need to have a working knowledge of all of the above areas of research as well as a firm grasp of the standards and methods by which all ancient literature is treated.
Unfortunately your "fallacy" fails even a cursory examination. The two verses are written in different languages at different times in different styles to different audiences about different things. I suppose if you try hard enough you could find something contradictory (if you try and do the same with other ancient documents, modern scholars will treat your findings with contempt).
Deut 24:16 says (ESV): "Fathers shall not be put to death because of their children, nor shall children be put to death because of their fathers. Each one shall be put to death for his own sin."
The whole book of Deuteronomy is a vassal treaty between a stronger party (God) and a weaker one (Israel) that follows the exact form of other treaties of the day. The parties are introduced, conditions are laid down for the period of rule, expected behaviour and punishments for deviations are discussed, and "out clauses" are specified. 24:16 is one of the miscellaneous laws that Israel were expected to obey and it emphasises that personal responsibility for capital crimes remains with the person and the person alone - unlike other cultures of the day where the whole family was slaughtered along with the miscreant. Understanding all the nuances of this law takes years: you need to know the history of Israel, the form of vassal treaties, the structure and purpose of OT Law and you should at least be able to read it in the original. But from the translation and the context, it's pretty clear: if you're guilty of a capital offence, you are the one that dies - and no-one else.
John 3:16 (ESV) says : "For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life."
OK, I see the "fallacy." Sons are not to be put to death for the sins of the fathers! Is that it? Well there's a major problem with that view and it is this: Jesus was executed in accordance with this law! Neither his mother nor earthly father nor any of his brothers were killed when he was found guilty of blasphemy. He and he alone went to the cross.
If you're trying to say claim that the laws God gave to Israel during the time of Moses now suddenly apply to God himself and his relationship with his Son 1200-odd years later, then you a) haven't listened during vassal treaty class (treaty rules NEVER apply in reverse) b) need to point out evidence of God the Father's "sin" somewhere (Jesus is dying for the sin of his Father remember?) and c) have possibly missed the point that Jesus was not guilty of blasphemy but voluntarily laid down his life on behalf of others.
Conclusion: not only is this not a valid objection, it actually sheds some light in the other direction: whatever the Jewish leadership of the day did wrong, they were certainly not guilty of violating the Mosaic law on personal responsibility when they handed Christ over to the Romans to be executed.
OK, you were in a situation where hypothermia was a clear risk (hiking? mountain climbing?) and could be aware of the onset of symptoms. I thought I had escaped to a safe environment! Not...
I can vouch for this experience 100%. After a long, cold and very wet route march across the South Downs (a particular Brit Army training exercise), I plonked myself down in a window seat on the bus to take us back to barracks and passed out from exhaustion. Some moron opened that window while I was sleeping with the result that I experienced 50mph windchill for the next two hours in wet clothing while completely immobile - no need for snow or 30 below zero weather.
When we go to the other end, I vaguely remember feeling warm and comfortable but strangely unable to move. I also remember being surrounded by clearly panicking instructors who were bellowing at me not to go to sleep while they manhandled me to the hospital. It was very surreal - like you're watching yourself from outside with a mixture of detachment and fascination. Mountaineering tales I've read describe the same thing: a sort of pleasant warmth even while you're looking at your frostbitten fingers and a very strong desire to take a "short nap."
Death by freezing would have felt pleasant I'm sure. On the other hand, being warmed up slowly was the worst experience I've ever had bar none because then you start feeling how cold you really are - and the feeling continues for days. I can't remember what my core temperature had dropped to but it was dangerously low.
You're absolutely right: it doesn't. Point well taken.
Hmmm, a thoughtful, polite and well-argued rebuttal from an AC. What is Slashdot coming to???
Maybe because he came up with it? It's his joke, he made it up and he's entitled to be credited as the original author of it. Kind of reminds me of the snotty kid who tried passing off the BOFH archives as his own. I'm not accusing the OP of that sentiment but credit where credit was due would have been nice.
P.S. Larry is correct - my mail archive shows he came up with it at the latest in 2000.
I'm not so sure it actually worked.
RMS was a MacArthur genius grant recipient. IIRC it gave him the independent means to pursue the GNU project full-time.
presumably the *BSDs are not just dead, but rotting in hell with all those demons!
I wouldn't go that far. It's more like: "Metcalfe confirms it - BSD is dying."
Tsk tsk. You're taking this way too personally.
I'm sure it's easy to copypaste some strawman argument containing hilarious phrases such as "pointy-haired boss" which the children will find irresistible, since they know nothing about the actual merits of the arguments, having never managed anyone, let alone a group of people who work together to achieve objectives such as saving people's lives, or even less noble objectives such as creating a software platform to aid the collective research efforts of thousands of researchers.
I rest my case. The above paragraph is one sentence! Obviously working with Java's crufty verbosity has affected your writing. I'd suggest taking a course in a more pithy language. By the way, Graham's argument is not a strawman: he's made it clear over a few different essays that because programming languages vary in power, smart coders who use more powerful languages can code circles around those using Java. Also if you're going to drag in logical fallacies then I need to point out yours too: "saving people's lives" and "aiding
I have used hundreds of thousands of dollars on Python code which the author believed to be really maintainable and work really well, but in the reality-based world turned to be such crap that the whole team, including me, had to work a breakneck pace to rewrite it in Java, which has such incredible features as working threading support, no Global Interpreter Lock, actual Oracle and LDAP support that doesn't leak memory like anything, and isn't 20 times slower than the Oracle and LDAP support in other languages, no monkey patches (oh yeah, Python coders seem to think that it's SUCH a good idea to monkeypatch others' code, since after all, SMART people should know without any documentation what's going on, and documentating code is useless anyway, people should just go in and read all of those millions of lines of code if they want to know what's going on) and, you know, clear and accurate documentation and HORDES of pre-existing components which make your life so much easier, if only you're not infected with the dreaded Python community NIH disease.
Sheesh, I thought the previous sentence was bad but this one takes the cake. Full stops are your friend. So is coherence. Some answers:
Java does have an additional useful feature: because of its mandatory coding practises and standards it's pretty easy to spot when an amateur has written something really broken, and contain the problem to those components which the amateur has touched. Perhaps this is what has happened to you?
Entirely possible. But I've seen good Java - really top of the line guru-doing-an-exercise-proposed-by-Martin_Fowler-s tandard type Java - and it was just plain ugly because the language is just plain ugly.
I've used, in production, Python, Perl, C, C++, Pascal, Java, x86 assembly, a little AutoLisp, and so on. Hundreds of thousands of lines. (The C code I have out there is pretty crappy, for which I apologise, but I was an amateur and thought of my work much as you seem to think now.)
Can't recall making any comments about your work or even you personally. *Checks* - nope. You
I like to call the GPL the viral open source license. Everything it touches is also made open by default.
A common misconception. It's copyright law itself that's viral.