To: Solon who wrote (16438 ) 2/29/2004 9:09:39 AM From: briskit Read Replies (4) | Respond to Becker writes, "but since everyone is carrying on as though the vital truths about man did not yet exist..." He's not writing as a religious person when saying this. I think his point is worth discussing in a variety of contexts. When considering our great cultural institutions and individual personality constructs, are we impressed that the quest for "truth" is the primary motivation? Becker, as human scientist, does not think the existence of truth makes that much difference to humankind yet. Regarding myth, gospel, closed universe, transcendence, well, how one considers the interplay of those categories yields various results. I assume (could be wrong) that you have not arrived at your conclusions after scholarly study of mythologies, the gospels, etc., then concluded that Jesus and the process of writing the gospels and biblical literature is mythological. Commonly, well educated and well-intended people bring their conclusions to the gospels, that because elements of the stories have pre-scientific cosmologies they must be full of unacceptable invented myth with no relation to historical events. (Some theologians, I think Schleiermacher and Bultmann famously, argue that we cannot base faith in God on such a flimsy foundation as the results of historical science. That is a different discussion.) Indeed, as has been said in many forums, it is a prima facia fact that certain gospel elements had to be borrowed directly from other myths, because they are the same. Duh! I am only suggesting that that presupposition ought to be questioned and has been questioned in academic settings. The point Weldon, the atheist, and Lewis were considering was that the gospels contain elements found in myth, true. But they are significantly different in texture and tone than mythology. Lewis was a literary scholar, and knows something about it. I do not think he just concocted a religious position on the matter, then converted and made a career of fooling people. The interesting thing is that Weldon did not convert to Christianity though he considered the historical authenticity of the gospels to rest on solid ground. In fact, the curious thing is that the atheist's comment led Lewis the atheist to a personal, religious commitment regarding the importance of gospel historicity that the atheist himself did not make. I think that gets back to different responses to data and the conclusions drawn from them. Weldon had no problem with the historical authenticity. (My point earlier is that I bet--spoken as a big poker loser here--that is not the bottom line of the issue for you either. If Weldon conviced you of the historical authenticity, both you and he would have that historical opinion in common, with no religious commitment resulting.) Weldon just didn't respond to the relevance of the information the way Lewis did. That's interesting.
