Giving Due Weight To The Voices Of Scholars

To be fair,

it's easy to find a scholar to support almost any view; especially at the outer fringes of scholarship.
This is why I give the highest % of *probability* on any view
to the consensus of qualified scholars whose work stands endorsed by prestigious not-religious Universities.

It's their wheelhouse.

Does that "prove" any given view is correct?
No.
But if the logic seems to be solid,
then consensus provides true justification for laymen to accept such conclusions as at least 'tentatively correct'; pending any future discovery. 

Although, I'm not impressed whenever religious "scholars" are supporting their own theological commitments. 

 I'm glad to see that scholarship of Biblical history is finally growing into secular maturity;
right before our eyes. 

 It's not there yet. But it's going through one hell of a *growth spurt. 

[*Thanks, in part, to Youtube channels like YaleCourses, Mythvision, Gnostic Informant, James Tabor's channel, Dan Maclellan's channel, etc.]

Meanwhile, I study and scrutinize everything I have both time and interest for.

Granted,
no individual person is under any moral imperative to deep-dive into any of it.

Such bodies of texts
are barely more than magical legends and superstitions
created and circulated by authoritarian narcissists and institutionalized flying monkeys.
As ancient literature, they have great value; because they offer insight into those ancient cultures, and into the timeline of human development.

However, a casual disinterest in studying those texts would be perfectly justified.

Religious fundamentalists say otherwise.

They insist that we are all under a moral obligation;

 a Divine Ultimatum to:

a.) perceive (as certain) that everyone and everything in our universe was intelligently designed and created. 

b.) make sure to NOT notice all the tragic flaws in that alleged design, 

c.) assume (with certainty) that there is only just one intelligent designer/creator;
based on nothing but the cultural popularity of modern monotheism.
Just make sure to avoid accidentally discovering that monotheism (as a concept) was only pretty-recently invented by humans. 

Also make sure to avoid learning that the entire PURPOSE of inventing the concept of monotheism is to consolidate social, political and military power; 
turning entire societies into violent authoritarian cults, 
 for the purpose of violent conquest, 
and ultimately to enable predatory rulers to amass as much power, glory, and pleasure (for themselves) as possible. 

d.) assume (with certainty) that the super-creator IS perfect; as supported by wishful optimism, while ignoring the severe evils inherent to nature.  

e.) 

study those texts,
b.) correctly-enough understand those texts, deep-dive into research about those texts, ultimately agree with those texts, and then live accordingly. 

However, 
we really shouldn't give that claim any credence.

Christianity is, 
in its entirety,
a superstitiously legitimized,
multi-faceted criminal enterprise. 

For anyone who wants to study Christianity in earnest, "Kissing Hank's Ass" should absolutely be part of that research.
Having studied the domain of evangelical Christianity for most of my life, 
I fully recognize such ideological movements as doing more harm than good in our world.


I realize they deny it.
That's what narcissists do. 

But I stand always at the ready to make the case. 

If any of the fundamentalist faiths are true,
then "God" is a mischievously abusive asshole. 
 

In that case, the "truth" would be a very very dark matter. 

It certainly wouldn't be "good news".

I don't need a PhD in ancient religions
to know abuse and destruction when I see it.

 




Unfortunately, the entire field of ancient religious studies
is under-equipped.

To become much better equipped, it needs:
1. Developmental and behavioral psychologists.
2. Sociologists who combine their field with being (or working closely with) statisticians who studies viral memetics.

3. Criminal-mind profilers.

Until the stage finally has all the missing talent,
all academic historical analysis about what was really happening in those ancient cultures (and in their modern-day versions) will remain handicapped. 

Meanwhile,
I don't always find any given scholar's arguments convincing.
But as a layman, I am humble enough to admit I always could be wrong about any textual meaning.

So then I'd NEVER speak like Mike Jones (of the channel "Inspiring Philosophy") when he spoke about Dr Bart Ehrman.

He has accused Ehrman of being woefully uninformed about Bart's own field of expertise. 

I'd also never speak like Mike Jones does, every time he wants to express confidence in his own viewpoint, to express his views as:
 loudly proclaimed statements of absolute fact. 
 
Jones is a layman researcher with deeply invested religious bias (motivating that research).

He speaks with 100% certainty of his own conclusions as FACTS, 

while painting world-renowned scholars (in those fields) as UNQUALIFED to disagree with the great Mike Jones.

As far as Mike Jones is concerned,
he has FINISHED processing ALL available pertinent facts for every position that he asserts as fact. 

It really reveals how UNAWARE they are
of how much BIGGER that library of knowledge is ... than the limited depth into which they've yet explored. 

But don't take my word for it. 


That means I don't have to account for Mike Jones' "state of mind" 
to agree with Dr Josh Bowen, Kipp David, Bart Ehrman, Dan Mclellan, Dr Jennifer Bird, and others ... 
that "Dunning-Kruger" can be reasonably identified as happening there (and with other religious apologists. 

When we identify a case of Dunning-Kruger,
that doesn't mean we're identifying intent.

Nor does it mean we are identifying specific character traits. 

Nor does it mean we are taking a snapshot of a person's entire "mental state".

It simply means:

Qualified scholars have noticed 
(and then demonstrated to the satisfaction of myself; and many other layman observers) 
that:

* a layman religious apologist who is expressing absolute confidence

* about a particular academic conclusion they've drawn, 

* under the mistakenly belief they've accounted for all necessary facts,

* due to them not realizing that there was a much larger library of facts that qualified scholars are drawing from, 

*all while relying heavily on religious bias and logical fallacies,  

is actually NOT something to which anyone owes respect or credence. 

In the very recent (still ongoing) case of Mike Jones' recent obsession with trying to prove that Jesus fulfilled an odd detail of an ancient prophecy about a messiah riding two specific kinds of pack-animals at once, ...

and Mike Jones' absolute INSISTANCE that Bart Ehrman is UNQUALIFIED to challenge Mike Jones on that point, ... 

under Mike Jones' CERTAINTY that Mike Jones knows and accounted for all available pertinent facts, ...

and Mike Jones' CERTAINTY that all the FACTS and LOGIC ITSELF demand Mike Jone's conclusion about the matter, ...

and thus anyone who disagrees with Mike Jones is just showing how ignorant they are, ...

has prompted many prominent and qualified scholars to show up in force 
to LOL @ Mike Jones.

If Jones REALIZED how much more there is to ACCOUNT FOR in his own analysis, then:

He wouldn't have needed qualified scholars to point out that:

there, in fact, ARE many relevant academic facts that Jones failed to account for.
 
In other words,
Mike Jones's certainty (about this issue and many others) 
is BECAUSE he keeps overestimating his own pool of knowledge;

due to:

a.) Not being self-aware enough to realize:
He really just keeps committing confirmation bias, as he cherry picks and quote-mines from sources he thinks agree with him, 
while disregarding every academic fact he doesn't like. 

And 
b.)  underestimating how much more there is to know about the subjects he "researches".

Neither qualified scholars
nor layman observers
 need to know Mike Jones' "mental state" to notice that that is a case of Dunning-Kruger. 

Other qualified scholars (besides just Ehrman) rushed in to call it out. 

I listened, considered, and then ultimately agreed with those scholars.

However, 
I think it matters much more
to zoom out; 
to see that battle in the context of the much larger war.

Mike Jones' RELIGION (call it whatever you want, if you don't like the word "religion"), 
requires him to assume nefarious intent 
for everyone who openly rebukes his religion's texts, dogmas, and impacts on humanity. 

He has to assume that, because his religion teaches that his God stands ready 
to eternally condemn those voices as "mockers and scoffers" who used our libertarian "free will" to stand against "the one true God". 

However, no matter what specific things I may be wrong about, 

 I'm never wrong out of rebellion. 

I'm not wrong about any related issues because of being irresponsibly lazy either.

In fact, I'm guilty of actually spending far too much time on such matters.

Whenever I'm wrong,
I'm just wrong.

There's no "freely chosen failing" to blame.

There's no "moral failing" to blame. 

It's inevitable.
I'm going to be wrong sometimes.
Everyone is. 
But I do have certain valuable cognitive tools to work with. For example, I'm mature enough to recognize that it should all be approached as a fluid assessment of probabilities.

Just as importantly, I recognize that the only people who should have zero (not any) seat at the table are:
religious fundamentalists.
And yes, that includes Mike Jones.

If he wants to be heard and considered, he should submit a formal academic PAPER; for proper peer review.

But he decided to sidestep that with an informal submission from his own platform. 

And yet, because that's part of a larger and societally-consequential GRIFT, 
where Mike Jones decided to publicly impugn the academic reputation of a leading qualified scholar as leverage, ... 

Various qualified scholars have decided to 'take him to task's about it;
 presenting him with the same challenges 
he would have received 
if he had properly submitted a paper on it.

Now, I realize most fundamentalists don't like the term "fundamentalist".
They don't own it.

So then I'll clarify what I mean by it.

By "fundamentalists", I mean anyone who speaks from a conviction that:

1. Some literal, sentient, authoritarian, Super-Being(s) authored their preferred body of religious texts.

2. (Whichever) Super-Being(s) have thus placed all humans under moral obligation to:
* assume any such BEING(s) exists,
* seek out their true identity and will,
* find exactly that,
* understand it all adequately enough,
and
* dedicate themselves/ourselves with a personal oath of loyalty to: thinking and living in (sufficient) accordance with the central tenets of their texts;
- "or else" suffer that Being's wrath.

---
---

It doesn't matter if it's a Catholic, Protestant, Islamic, or some other type of religious fundamentalist.
As a mental state of extreme bias per a set of ideological commitments, made under extreme threat, and leveraged against their (and everyone else's) personal identity and worth, ...
Religious fundamentalism is completely incompatible with scholarship.

As Dr Josh Bowen has gone on record to say (<--- link), ...
 [Although, he is quoting another well-known scholar here]

"Scholarship 
is always pushing beyond today's status quo;
probing,
challenging,
applying new data and new theory.

What I have been trying to show ... is that fundamentalism is incompatible with scholarship.

 Fundamentalism has already determined its conclusions. 

 It is not seeking,
because it already knows the answer. 

If it has good evidence on its side which supports the bible, it uses it.
 
If it has little data, 
it twists and interprets what it has, to support the bible.

If it has no evidence, it hypothesizes that such will eventually be found (or they'll imagine it already exists).

And, of course, no amount of contrary evidence is sufficient. 

Fundamentalism can never conclude that the bible is wrong.".

---
---

If any literal Super-Entity(ies) had any hand in helping write anything in any religion's texts, ...

They did a damned good job of:
* authoring confusion,
and then
* leaving people
to splash around in it.

Which people are splashing around in it?
The contagiously infected,
the vulnerably manipulated,
and the morbidly curious.
At the outer ring of the splash zone?
People who study that scene intently because they want to understand why humanity is taking so long to grow up.
Nobody else makes time for it. 

And yet, 
to be entirely fair, ...

People
are doing the best they can.
This is why I'm not entirely critical of Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Mainstream Protestants, Muslims, Hindus, etc..

No matter how wrong anyone is about what they THINK regarding "God(s)",
they aren't wrong on purpose.

It's not something any Super-Being cold rationally justify taking personally. 

Now, I can afford to be that fair.
But Christian apologists cannot afford to be that fair; because it's the foundational premise upon which their religion "separates the wheat from the chaff". 
[PEOPLE; objectified 
and separated out
into two groupings:
 1. those worth keeping 
and 
2. that which is disposable, recyclable waste.] 

 In their minds,
once you and I hear enough of "the message", 
you and I will promptly (and unavoidably) sort ourselves out as being either: 
a.) drawn to their specific conceptualization of "Jesus" 
or else
b.) we prove ourselves to be "chaff"; aka "bad soil"; aka "goats". 

["If you're not with me, you're against me".]

Now, sometimes they (or a supporter of theirs) will feel that you or I been unfair about them personally. 

Or, at least, they'll take it personally
whenever we notice them
committing one error or another.

And, yes, I am always willing to hear and consider such objections.

But let's be clear about this:

If I hear and consider such objections, it's NOT something I owe them. 

It's not something anyone owes them.

Humans owe that to each other;
except not to religious fundamentalists.
And here is why:

They pre-forfeit the right to complain whenever they don't feel we have been fair in our evaluations of their evangelizing, and/or their apologetics. 

At any time
they (or their supporters)
feel that the apologist or evangelizer has been 'unfairly evaluated' (or judged)(about anything at all), 
they are being automatically and extremely hypocritical to object.

I say that because their religious position is that fairness can go fuck itself whenever it's them evaluating others (and far more harshly). 

They're dogmatically obligated to make gross assumptions about "the heart condition" (moral character) of:
 the casually disinterested,
 the critically unimpressed, 
 the doctrinally divergent, 
 the "lukewarm",
 the "backslidden".  
 the de-converting, 
 the "lifestyle"-disqualifying, 
 and the differently-religious. 
-Especially regarding people who have heard enough of "The message" to have (according to apologists) been spiritually litmus-tested.  

So then,
if I accuse a Christian-religious fundamentalist apologist of some specific error in their reasoning,
they can (and usually will) take that personally;
mistaking that for an assumption about the person's character or entire mental state. 

 But I'm not going to fall for such a manipulative and disingenuous victim-card.

They may as well slide that card right back into their hand; because that doesn't play here. 

Let's not lose sight of the situation we're actually in.

Christian-religious apologists are:

1. running a racketeering scheme,
2. selling fraudulent afterlife fire insurance,
3. leveraging for control over vulnerable minds for the purpose of exploiting those minds for personal gain 
[Not only for money. Also for amassing social power and privilege, political power and privilege, and to satiate their own egos] 
4. Doing P.R. and Damage Control for organized criminal syndicates whose collective crimes include:
* the aforementioned crimes, 
and 
* rampant sexual exploitation of vulnerable women and children. 
[not that every apologist themselves realizes that, nor that they themselves all commit those sexual crimes. I simply mean that's what their mafia network of churches is partly about; even though many of their members and front-men don't realize it.] 

They're also attempting to conquer and manipulate the political arena;
in every country where they're allowed to at least try. 

For what purpose? 

Look at what they're doing in America.
In the political arena, they are trying to collapse the entire grid of governmental support services for the poor, the elderly, and the disabled.

Why?

It's part of a larger initiative to create a situation where all vulnerable citizens are forced to rely on fundamentalist religious organizations for their survival; and for their children's education. 

Why?

So that those organizations can then make "religious education" (combined with far-right political indoctrination) a required part of "services rendered".

Why?

It's part of their much broader effort to conquer the world. 

Why?

Because that's what religious authoritarians believe their "God" wants for them. 

 "He" wants to deliver the world into their hands.

They paint that as:
them delivering us into "His" hands. 

 Initially, all that power would be exciting for them.  

The streets would run red
with the blood of "His" enemies; 
as it always did in the past. 

Totalitarian regimes never go well for the people.

But ultimately, ... 
They are trying to bring about a literal end of all life in Earth. 


So let's not lose sight of the situation. 

Abrahamic-religious fundamentalists 
are not merely "expressing a different worldview".

Nor are they merely competing in the arena of ideas.

They are not merely "trying to save souls" either.


They are entitled, "authorized agents", of a wholly criminal enterprise. 
 
Their worldview is inherently psychologically violent.




They aggressively sabotage young people's ability to MATURE into the CAPCITY to have a healthy relationship with themselves;

 and with others.

 In clinical terms, it's called the Narcissist's "triangulation"; pitting flying monkeys against anyone the Narcissist has proven unable to directly subjugate. 

The primary ways they sabotage young people's future ability to even RECOGNIZE what a healthy relationship looks like 
is by holding up an "ultimate" example of a psychopathically abusive, clinically narcissistic "Father" ...
and then saying "THIS is what LOVE looks like". 


They are societal arsonists who capitalize off the fires they set; because their masters realize:

 Healthy human social systems 
 foster healthy humans.

 Healthy humans, in turn, are not panic-shopping for existential lifelines.  

Healthy and mature humans

will not be receptive to offers to "rescue" people from themselves. 

Without THAT, Christianity loses their entire market base. 
  
It's thoroughly deceptive;
to a blatantly Orwellian degree. 




Their 'white knight' efforts to "save us" is ultimately exploitative.


"Their Holy books were written by men
with Major Personality Disorders 
writing "How To" Guides 
for getting away with it."
[An exact quote which both Dr Jennifer Bird and Dr Dan McClellan have recently gone on record to agree with]

Abrahamic-religious apologists and evangelizers are not your friends.

They are not your allies.

They are not your peers.

They are not coming to you as equals. 

They do not have your actual best interests at heart.

The are Dominionists.


They are colonizers. 


They are racists.
Not always based on skin color.
Although, yes, it's often that too. 



But I mean "racists" in the sense of making their religion INTO a master race.

It's an artificial social construct 
that attempts to reserve special power and respect for those within that construct;
at the expense and detriment of those outside of it.

That sociopolitical, religious-cultural niche 
 didn't defeat racism.
They merely redrew and rebuilt the foundation racism is based upon. 



They represent a global rabble of begrudgingly networked mafia families. 

They are groomers for a sociopolitical cult 
hell-bent on global domination;
 and ultimately global annihilation. 



They should NOT be afforded respect (while they stand on that platform), 
 because they are NOT affording that to you;
nor to anyone you love.  

Dignifying their efforts to grift 
is automatically an act of
dignifying the grift itself.
 

So while they seek aggressively for opportunities to play the VICTIM, 
we'd have to be a very special kind of stupid 
to ever fall for that. 

The reality is this.

Their outspoken critics are defenders of humanity.

We are the vanguards. 

We are the finally-realized uprising of historically suppressed voices.

We are the unapologetic PUSHBACK against bullies who feel personally wronged every time someone stands up to them. 
--

I don't know if some super-intelligent Super-Beings designed or built this universe.
But I also don't care. 

If some such BEINGS wanted CREDIT
from us
for some such works,
they'd be here to take credit directly.

They aren't here.
They aren't taking credit.
So either no such beings did any such things
or 
they don't give a shit about what we think. 

Religious fundamentalists and evangelizers are USING that absence as a SPACE into which they INSERT THEMSELVES;
 "on behalf of" a mental construct designed to create the illusion of moral authority (over everyone else). 

Their outspoken critics aren't wrong due to any "free will" choice.
It's not evidence of bad character.
They aren't wrong due to "rejecting" or "rebelling" against any universe-creating Super-people.

People are wrong due to unavoidable human failings; which nobody freely chooses to suffer from.

When it comes to studying the Abrahamic religious texts (Hebrew, Christian, and Islamic), ...

I have explored, found, and considered the full range of academic voices.

Nobody is under any ethical weight to dive deep into any of it. 

I had my own personal reasons for caring about any of it.

The only reason anyone should care at all ... is because it's the only way to understand the prevalent cultural and political happenings of our world. 

 Without those understandings, I dare say we have no business near a voting booth. 
 But we'd all be a lot better off if those ideological cults weren't being charitably GIFTED a seat at the table they've gone out of their way to devalue.