Isn't Robert Spencer's mythicist theory on Muhammad pretty dangerous?

[oldcatholicguy]

Just the opposite, I am warning of some mythicists whose agenda would be halped by some easy made parallels or amalgams in religious history.
Agendas of denial of mythicists and defense of the faith by rejecting other teachings, by any believer actuallly, are two separate things, and again some opponents may take them as one to serve their purposes.

You’re assuming that these mythicists haven’t already or wouldn’t in the future make such comparisons themselves. The already existing comparisons of Christ to various well proven mythical religious figures (like Apollo or Sol Invictus or Mithras) as “proof” that Christ isn’t a historical figure would indicate that Mr. Spencer’s work isn’t actually providing them more “ammo” for their arguments.

 

[MarcoPG]

I’m confused by what your saying, so don’t take it to mean I disagree with you. Ok so mythical inquires will turn into a new phenom by these comparisions.

Agendas of denial of mythical inquiry and defense of faith by rejecting teachings of those who believe are two different paths indeed. But the mythical inquiry is based on this supposed historical research.

I don’t know if these parallels were aleady made, in the same idea as comparing Jesus to Horus or Mithra, there is no reason in trying to deny Jesus by the same method Mr. SPencer tries to show the absence of historical accounts about Mohammed. I hope it doesn’t happen.

It is historical research, but as I said it may be dishonest sometimes, or biased. Both sides may be driven by biases, skeptical and faithful.

 

[MarcoPG]

You’re assuming that these mythicists haven’t already or wouldn’t in the future make such comparisons themselves. The already existing comparisons of Christ to various well proven mythical religious figures (like Apollo or Sol Invictus or Mithras) as “proof” that Christ isn’t a historical figure would indicate that Mr. Spencer’s work isn’t actually providing them more “ammo” for their arguments.

I am saying I am afraid it could be used this way. Assuming is a word i dislike. Not that I intend to know something more than others, or basing my opinions on my own ideas. As you said, mythical figures already served the purpose of mythicists

 

[oldcatholicguy]

I am saying I am afraid it could be used this way. Assuming is a word i dislike. Not that I intend to know something more than others, or basing my opinions on my own ideas. As you said, mythical figures already served the purpose of mythicists

Then a flawed analysis of Muhammad being historical or not really doesn’t bring anything new to the table in regards to the analysis of Christ being historical or not.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I don’t know if these parallels were aleady made, in the same idea as comparing Jesus to Horus or Mithra, there is no reason in trying to deny Jesus by the same method Mr. SPencer tries to show the absence of historical accounts about Mohammed. I hope it doesn’t happen.

It is historical research, but as I said it may be dishonest sometimes, or biased. Both sides may be driven by biases, skeptical and faithful.

It may be pure speculation of course, and the end conclusion may be based on complete nonsense. However, the books are selling like hot-cakes. The problem I have is does this coincide with anything Pope Francis is saying or are we to suppose and determine ourselves? And in this regard why would CAF promote his work if its contrary? Someone surely read all this? yes or no?

 

[MarcoPG]

Then a flawed analysis of Muhammad being historical or not really doesn’t bring anything new to the table in regards to the analysis of Christ being historical or not.

Probably not, but how many flawed arguments do we see, trying to prove the non existance or the non historicity of Jesus, when compared to other figures? Nevertheless, mythicists try in any way they would find reasonable.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

It may pure speculation of course, and the end conclusion may be based on complete nonsense. However, the books are selling like hot-cakes. The problem I have is does this coincide with anything Pope Francis is saying or are we to suppose and determine ourselves? And in this regard why would CAF promote his work if its contrary? Someone surely read all this? yes or no?

I would assume CA is promoting his works because of the owners’ and operators’ eagerness to fulfill the mission of CA (spreading the Word and defending the faith) and no one has properly examined if Mr. Spencer’s works which focus on Islam and not on Catholicism fit into CA’s mission or purview.

 

[MarcoPG]

Mr. Spencer states in did Muhammad exist? that his intent, although it might shock believers, is not to destroy one’s faith (but it would in fact), but to show the historical side of the rise of Islam.

That might be seen as respectful of Islam. I personally think it isn’t desrespectful in itself, alright, but it is a bit naive to think Muslims wouldn’t bother, since as the author says, beginning to question the existence of the Prophet is something inimaginable to Muslims. We may add, to many Christians too.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I would assume CA is promoting his works because of the owners’ and operators’ eagerness to fulfill the mission of CA (spreading the Word and defending the faith) and no one has properly examined if Mr. Spencer’s works which focus on Islam and not on Catholicism fit into CA’s mission or purview.

I tell you he has many expert hats. After one, anyone should be skeptical. Its basically combined with all these web sights in thought and writing, and it appears agenda driven, and imho appealing to specific target groups. You have to wonder how many avid followers of Spencer there is.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Mr. Spencer states in did Muhammad exist? that his intent, although it might shock believers, is not to destroy one’s faith (but it would in fact), but to show the historical side of the rise of Islam.

That might be seen as respectful of Islam. I personally think it isn’t desrespectful in itself, alright, but it is a bit naive to think Muslims wouldn’t bother, since as the author says, beginning to question the existence of the Prophet is something inimaginable to Muslims. We may add, to many Christians too.

I don’t know though that strict historians are seeking anything but facts and regardless of religion. Respect is continent to all this. But a historical fact is a fact. If Mohammed did something contrary to other understandings, doesn’t change a fact in history. In my opinion there are different perspectives here. I guess it depends on what expert historians make of the proposed embarrassment approach. Isn’t that what Christians are saying in essence of Jesus as God, and understanding mystery over time.

 

[MarcoPG]

1. I don’t know though that strict historians are seeking anything but facts and regardless of religion.
2. Respect is continent to all this.
3. But a historical fact is a fact. If Mohammed did something contrary to other understandings, doesn’t change a fact in history.
4. In my opinion there are different perspectives here. I guess it depends on what expert historians make of the proposed embarrassment approach. Isn’t that what Christians are saying in essence of Jesus as God, and understanding mystery over time.

1. there are strict historians, real historians, archeology experts and anthopologists which are paid to prove the young earth theory…

2)Respect of history, but maybe not paying much attention to one’s beliefs and sensitivity.

1. A fact is a fact, when we have it. We don’t really know what Mohammed did directly, so understandings wouldn’t change a thing, sure, but what thing? That’s why the mythist theory is possible, because of the lack of historical facts.
2. Yes, but even the humanity of Christ would be enough to argue that He existed. the Letters of Paul alone are good evidence.

For Mohammed, we can’t really say, either way; just that he was almost always seen as an important historical figure. So I would tend about his historicity.
Theology or philosophy don’t prove the founder existed. It has to be analysed after the existence of the founder, clearly.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1. there are strict historians, real historians, archeology experts and anthopologists which are paid to prove the young earth theory…

Thats all they do prove the young earth theory?

2)Respect of history, but maybe not paying much attention to one’s beliefs and sensitivity…

Seems your argument is based on islams respect. I don’t think historians set out with that in mind, but are mindful of it, in which case so should the reverse be true.

1. A fact is a fact, when we have it. We don’t really know what Mohammed did directly, so understandings wouldn’t change a thing, sure, but what thing? That’s why the mythist theory is possible, because of the lack of historical facts…

We know there are factual contradictions as displayed, based on a “theory” of why its so. I believe thats called the embarrassment theory as indicated. As the presumption of this statement I disagree. Should I roll my eyes too?

1. Yes, but even the humanity of Christ would be enough to argue that He existed. the Letters of Paul alone are good evidence…

The morality of Christ has never been a great argument.

I think you see the historic argument as different than the one Spencer proposes. To me its status quo. As is Islams since its based on the truth of the Quran in understanding Christianity of which it incorrectly speaks of. Be it the same approach is used or not is what the Pope is speaking about imho.

For Mohammed, we can’t really say, either way; just that he was almost always seen as an important historical figure. So I would tend about his historicity. Theology or philosophy don’t prove the founder existed. It has to be analysed after the existence of the founder, clearly.

You have a important historical figure being contested historically that he even existed and to the points of his existence-historically. And they are tending to this in the video. Which part was wrong we’ll investigate right here? Their inquiry is after the existence of Mohammed. I don’t see your point.

 

[MarcoPG]

1. Thats all they do prove the young earth theory?
2. Seems your argument is based on islams respect. I don’t think historians set out with that in mind, but are mindful of it, in which case so should the reverse be true.
3. We know there are factual contradictions as displayed, based on a “theory” of why its so. I believe thats called the embarrassment theory as indicated. As the presumption of this statement I disagree. Should I roll my eyes too?
4. The morality of Christ has never been a great argument.

I think you see the historic argument as different than the one Spencer proposes. To me its status quo. As is Islams since its based on the truth of the Quran in understanding Christianity of which it incorrectly speaks of. Be it the same approach is used or not is what the Pope is speaking about imho.

1. You have a important historical figure being contested historically that he even existed. And they are tending to this in the video. Which part was wrong we’ll investigate right here? Their inquiry is after the existence of Mohammed. I don’t see your point.

1. It is the job of some evangelical scientists, yes.
2. Not only, history isn’t sensitive or sensible per se, but as catholics, we should follow or at least consider the advice of the Pope, which demands respect and regard for the sensibility of believers of other religions.

3)Contradictions may indicate not facts but conflicting renderings of the facts. Facts can’t be contradicted, or they aren’t properly called facts. WHat is to be done is to find what the facts are, and this we are far from it.

1. I talked about the **humanity **of Christ, because it would be less problematic to say a man named Jesus existed, than God incarnated. So not morality, but physical reality.

Status quo it is, and we return to my first point, because of this status quo, mythicists would tend to dismiss both, if they can dismiss either Mohammed or Jesus. One isn’t supported by better evidence than the other, they may say.

1. I never intended to say it was wrong; as I said, critical-historical research is needed for every religion which claims being historical, which is almost every single one.
   What I say is the method of criticism of texts which gives Spencer’s theory on Muhammad its weight could be applied on Jesus with similar initial doubts, putting Christianity, at least for a moment, in the same delicate situation that Spencer is trying to prove about Islam. So a catholic believer would indirectly nurish the mythicists’ claims on Jesus, though the subject is Muhammad. It is not about the subject, but the method.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1. It is the job of some evangelical scientists, yes.

Do you want to amend this statement in the definition of “all expert historians”?

1. there are strict historians, real historians, archeology experts and anthopologists which are paid to prove the young earth theory…

1. Not only, history isn’t sensitive or sensible per se, but as catholics, we should follow or at least consider the advice of the Pope, which demands respect and regard for the sensibility of believers of other religions.

We should and we shouldn’t assume Spencer isn’t?

3)Contradictions may indicate not facts but conflicting renderings of the facts. Facts can’t be contradicted, or they aren’t properly called facts. WHat is to be done is to find what the facts are, and this we are far from it.

May, being the operative word. they may also indicate a fact.

1. I talked about the **humanity **of Christ, because it would be less problematic to say a man named Jesus existed, than God incarnated. So not morality, but physical reality.

Of which case whoever may disagree with any of this has every right to and we shouldn’t suggest they not even ask these questions out of respect for our belief.

Status quo it is, and we return to my first point, because of this status quo, mythicists would tend to dismiss both, if they can dismiss either Mohammed or Jesus. One isn’t supported by better evidence than the other, they may say.

Mythicists would tend to dismiss both, if they can dismiss either Mohammed or Jesus?

By your own definition Spencer doesn’t fit this.

1. I never intended to say it was wrong; as I said, critical-historical research is needed for every religion which claims being historical, which is almost every single one.
   What I say is the method of criticism of texts which gives Spencer’s theory on Muhammad its weight could be applied on Jesus with similar initial doubts, putting Christianity, at least for a moment, in the same delicate situation that Spencer is trying to prove about Islam. So a catholic believer would indirectly nurish the mythicists’ claims on Jesus, though the subject is Muhammad. It is not about the subject, but the method.

Right above

By your own definition Spencer doesn’t fit this.

 

[MarcoPG]

1. Do you want to amend this statement in the definition of “all expert historians”?
2. We should and we shouldn’t assume Spencer isn’t?
3. May, being the operative word. they may also indicate a fact.
4. Of which case whoever may disagree with any of this has every right to and we shouldn’t suggest they not even ask these questions out of respect for our belief.
5. Mythicists would tend to dismiss both, if they can dismiss either Mohammed or Jesus?

By your own definition Spencer doesn’t fit this.

Right above

By your own definition Spencer doesn’t fit this.

1. History is a science, and it is either way a matter of many parts of science.
   I can’t take this under the difinition of all expert historians, no. Some of them, while being expert, see through their bias.
2. I am not assuming, once again. I am pointing out the paradox when he writes that he knows surching for the truth in the historical origins of Islam is for sure hurting believers, and on the other hand, while knowing how hot the topic is, he states the intent is not to destroy the faith of Muslims. In fact, without Muhammad, there is no Islam. That is where I see the tension.
3. Yes, I try to be careful since I can’t really say. If they indicate facts, and yet they contradict each other, one must be false. So one is not a fact, but something less.
4. Sure…do you think I suggest not to research anything?
5. I am not talking about mythicist which are also believers like Spencer, but more like radical atheists. So sure, this doesn’t fit with Spencer; that is because I wasn’t referring to the same category of mythicists. Spencers is a mythicist when researching on Islam, which is a way to defend the faith I guess, while Carrieer is a mythicist on anything that could be understood as supernatural.
   I will repeat again: Spencer by being a mythicist about Muhammad, nurishes the radical mythicists indirectly. That is the whole point of my thread. I don’t say Spencer is like Robert Price or so. I say his intentions may be good, he has the right to do what he does, but in my opinion he could have been more careful when defending the faith in history, not just concentrating on the myth of Islam.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1. History is a science, and it is either way a matter of many parts of science.
   I can’t take this under the difinition of all expert historians, no. Some of them, while being expert, see through their bias.
2. I am not assuming, once again. I am pointing out the paradox when he writes that he knows surching for the truth in the historical origins of Islam is for sure hurting believers, and on the other hand, while knowing how hot the topic is, he states the intent is not to destroy the faith of Muslims. In fact, without Muhammad, there is no Islam. That is where I see the tension.
3. Yes, I try to be careful since I can’t really say. If they indicate facts, and yet they contradict each other, one must be false. So one is not a fact, but something less.
4. Sure…do you think I suggest not to research anything?
5. I am not talking about mythicist which are also believers like Spencer, but more like radical atheists. So sure, this doesn’t fit with Spencer; that is because I wasn’t referring to the same category of mythicists. Spencers is a mythicist when researching on Islam, which is a way to defend the faith I guess, while Carrieer is a mythicist on anything that could be understood as supernatural.

You invented a strawman and assume Spencer isn’t following Catholicism and then want to apply a strict paradigm which only applies to Catholicism.

 

[MarcoPG]

You …] assume Spencer isn’t following Catholicism and then want to apply a strict paradigm which only applies to Catholicism.

Where do you see that? Why do you understand that for me SPencer doesn’t follow his religion? And it is not about ecumenism. It is about history, the care which one should use when researching isn’t just about religious sensitivity, it is about human dignity as a whole.

What does apply just to Catholicism?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Where do you see that? Why do you understand that for me SPencer doesn’t follow his religion? And it is not about ecumenism. It is about history, the care which one should use when researching isn’t just about religious sensitivity, it is about human dignity as a whole.

What does apply just to Catholicism?

Then the same human dignity should apply to all regardless of what questions they ask. And that doesn’t apply to only Catholicism. And then you would suggest how Catholics should proceed with Islam as if Spencer is wrong, but don’t know if Spencer is following his faith nor do you care to comment on it. Frankly I don’t see what your saying or the merit in it.

 

[MarcoPG]

1. Then the same human dignity should apply to all regardless of what questions they ask. And that doesn’t apply to only Catholicism.
2. And then you would suggest how Catholics should proceed with Islam as if Spencer is wrong, but don’t know if Spencer is following his faith nor do you care to comment on it. Frankly I don’t see what your saying or the merit in it.

1. I agree.
2. No I don’t suggest how Catholics should proceed, I suggest what Spencer could have added to his work in order to defend possible mythicists claims using his work.

I really can’t know if Spencer is following his faith, but I am not saying he is not following it.
Plus, if Mr. Spencer thinks he does his research the right way (I am talking about the method again), surely he thinks he shouldn’t bother. That seems to be clear when he said his intent is not to attack Islam, but to shed light on history.
All I say is the side effect of showing history by this mythicist theory on Muhammad will certainly hurt people, as he recognizes. So where is my strawman? He tells many times it is delicate.

Finally, one can’t say Spencer doesn’t follow Catholicism even if he wouldn’t be disrespectful of other religions. It is too much to say this. Just because one sins doesn’t mean his intentions are to sin. Or every faithful wouldn’t follow Catholicism every time he does something contrary to what the Church teaches. And there is no definitive Church teaching, by the way, on an critical-historical method. Sure we should follow dogma, but “only” Nostra Aetate or Dignitatis Humanae aren’t enough to say how the method should be used, since history is not much discussed in these two documents.

Therefore I can’t comment much more. I have no merit whatsoever; talking about the danger of a theory shouldn’t give anyone much merit anyway. I asked about thoughts on this possible parallels, the fact that Spencer is a Catholic only partly gives a hint on the method and the purposes, but that is a different thing, since what I have seen is the lack of protection from mythicists against Christianity.

 

[GaryTaylor]

1. I agree.
2. No I don’t suggest how Catholics should proceed, I suggest what Spencer could have added to his work in order to defend possible mythicists claims using his work.

I really can’t know if Spencer is following his faith, but I am not saying he is not following it.
Plus, if Mr. Spencer thinks he does his research the right way (I am talking about the method again), surely he thinks he shouldn’t bother. That seems to be clear when he said his intent is not to attack Islam, but to shed light on history.
All I say is the side effect of showing history by this mythicist theory on Muhammad will certainly hurt people, as he recognizes. So where is my strawman? He tells many times it is delicate.

Finally, one can’t say Spencer doesn’t follow Catholicism even if he wouldn’t be disrespectful of other religions. It is too much to say this. Just because one sins doesn’t mean his intentions are to sin. Or every faithful wouldn’t follow Catholicism every time he does something contrary to what the Church teaches. And there is no definitive Church teaching, by the way, on an critical-historical method. Sure we should follow dogma, but “only” Nostra Aetate or Dignitatis Humanae aren’t enough to say how the method should be used, since history is not much discussed in these two documents.

Therefore I can’t comment much more. I have no merit whatsoever; talking about the danger of a theory shouldn’t give anyone much merit anyway. I asked about thoughts on this possible parallels, the fact that Spencer is a Catholic only partly gives a hint on the method and the purposes, but that is a different thing, since what I have seen is the lack of protection from mythicists against Christianity.

Your “protection of mythicists” is the strawman. You insist on a label in which you contradicted yourself, and while harping on respect, you have none from this man who you labeled, categorized and then astonishingly you admit; “there is no definitive Church teaching, by the way, on an critical-historical method.” Further aside from all this, you haven’t even started to make the case for your assertion. And so, you know, it can’t be done as he also contradicts himself in his various writing of the existence of Mohammed.

You based your assumption on a rhetorical point concluded what Spencer believes as a whole. Simply not conclusive and appears as a contradiction of his other works.

Thanks, I didn’t say YOU didn’t have merit. Your argument has none. There is no theory which you yourself defined and Spencer doesn’t fit into. Nor have you made a single point in relation to a book but a theory which by your own words doesn’t fit. You think Spencer should be more polite, thats your gripe and you created a double standard here where you agree “it is about human dignity as a whole”. But have nothing to say about the double standard of treatment or “His” human dignity or Christians, let alone in how Muslims view the history or the Quran. You admit you do not know what Spencer is doing in relation to his own faith, nor is it a path you should venture into.

Basically your here to talk about a guy who you think is disrespectful. I get that. But, the argument is a strawman. The idea of Jesus not existing is old news, the way Islam uses polemics is also historic. The way Christians use polemics in regard to Islam is not new and also historic. The entire argument with Islam is disrespectful. But in a time where freedom of speech and religion is the topic often of the day. I really don’t see the Spencers of the world changing strategy. They have the right to do so. Be it anyone listens or there is any merit to their writing is another story. But let us not be so naive to think that all intentions are wonderful with Islam in this regard either. By large, right or wrong, these people feel obligated to follow their conscience and on both sides.

A better approach is contingent of people being able to be open minded and respectful. But when people believe they have reached the absolute truth such as what is believed to be in the Quran and its personal understanding from sect to sect, then as you see, there usually is no turning back.

There’s a conversation to be had, but not based on unproven accusations, the only “myth” here is indeed that strawman.