The Difference between "Mythicists" and 9/11 Truthers

New Testament scholar Larry Hurtado compares "Mythicists" with 9/11 Truthers, rather unfavorably:

Perhaps the most puzzling claim, that would be amusing were it not apparently asserted so seriously, is that sometime in the 1980s a massive conspiracy (by “New Evangelical” interests) engineered the appointment of scholars in departments of Religion, Classics, Ancient History, etc., and that it managed to skew scholarly opinion, even among Jewish scholars and people of n0 religious affiliation, to support the historical existence of a Jesus of Nazareth.    Hmm.  That’s right up there with the notion that the Twin Towers were destroyed by the CIA!  (Is there something in the drinking water nowadays in some places?) Certainly, many of those who have engaged the current “mythicist” issue (e.g., Maurice Casey) would be surprised to learn that their views have been shaped ingeniously without their knowing it by this “New Evangelical” cabal eager to prop up traditional Christianity!

But contrary to professor Hurtado's understanding, the difference between Mythicists - people who deny that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed - and 9/11 Truthers, is that the first group must argue against the overwhelming majority of experts who accept  that Jesus actually existed, whereas the second group have the support of over 1700 architects and engineers  to support their position, which by the way, doesn't include the claim that the CIA must have destroyed the Twin Towers. 

Dang, Another Blog I'll Have to Read

My blog list is getting far tooo long, but I don't see how I can avoid adding:

  The Colossian Forum

Edward Feser Reviews Nagel's "Mind and Cosmos"

My hope that Aristotelian/Thomist philosopher Edward Feser would review Thomas Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos, has been fulfilled sooner than I could have expected: Aristotle, Call Your Office.

It's nice to have my perceptions of Nagel's views verified.

Advice for Thomas Nagel: Get Thee to the Lyceum

If I were a better philosopher I might try to write an actual review of Thomas Nagel's book, Mind and Cosmos; Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False. After reading his book it is obvious that Nagel is either a Platonist or an Aristotelian. Since he wants to try maintain some sort of philosophical Naturalism, I suggest that he go with Aristotle. Plato maintained that there was an inherent dualism in reality between the world of Forms (or Ideas or Archetypes) and the physical world. His student Aristotle rejected this dualism, maintained the reality of the Forms but insisted that they were inherent in the physical world. He came up with four causes by which the world can be known: Material, Formal, Efficient, and Final causes. Nagel very much wants to maintain that consciousness, ethical values, and teleology are all real, but also that they are inherent properties of Nature. The similarity to Aristotle is too close to be ignored and one wonders why Nagel doesn't just come out of the closet and admit that he is an Aristotelian. I might have more to say later, but meanwhile I recommend reading his book. It's worth it.

Plantinga's Article on Religion and Science

If you haven't yet read Alvin Plantinga's 2011 book, Where the Conflict Really Lies; Science, Religion, and Naturalism, you might want to read the 2010 article on Religion and Science that he contributed to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It serves as a sort of outline for what he covers in greater detail in his book. The friend who brought the article to my attention noticed that Plantinga is more critical of Intelligent Design in his book than in his article, possibly reflecting further development of Plantinga's thinking on the subject.

Professor, Why do you wear Tennis Shoes?

By the way, that should be "Irwin Corey."

A Global 1937

Paul Krugman argues that the present global austerity policies are reminiscent of what happened in 1937, when the U.S. thought that it was high time to reduce government spending and reduce the deficit. The result: a double-dip depression.