I feel respected and a sense of trust in your writing and research. It's like people discussing a beautiful classical music piece and they can have very different religious and politial views.
Tanner, your neutral approach is an important element in why I read you. I trust your scholarship, your analysis, and appreciate your fascinating speculations about what might’ve happened if this or that doctrine had or had not taken hold. Politics made visible in the realm of religion! Thank you, friend.
Thanks for spelling this out, it makes a lot of sense. I have a question though regarding my own writing. If I point out what I feel are real world harms caused by a particular belief, am I abandoning objectivity?
Not at all, as long as you're upfront with your reader that what you're pointing to is your own read on the harms, what you believe rather than what you claim to know for certain. To me, objectivity is about staying honest with yourself and your audience, not about pretending you have no perspective.
Hi Seth, your question is well framed. In my practice I have often been guided by instinct that has been nurtured by thinkers like Tanner. I have learned to trust this massive parallel pattern-seeking processor's working to deal with the unexpected that my conscious mind cannot do. Not perfect and not "feeling" or belief. Often only understood later. Often with good results, sometimes not. I frame it accurately as "I think...": objective facts context. Having emotions is human and must be presented as "I feel": valid in that context.
I couldn't agree more. I read your answer after I'd replied to Seth, so I wouldn't be influenced, and I'm glad to see that what you're describing is exactly how my thought process works.
A reader who believes that God wrote the books of the Bible through men will have a problem with any scholarship that casts doubt on their authenticity. A divinely inspired author, to their way of thinking, would not misidentify as Paul.
Some of your work skims theology. I have read that a lot of bible edits are based on theologic reasons. Is free will a theologic topic? Anyway, your posts are excellent. It didnt occur to me that existence of god should be avoided. Your attacker was not justified. Free speech foul. His loss
My religious faith and/or lack thereof has been a confusing part of my life since at least my early 20s. I am glad I found your posts here on Substack. I like learning about religion---how it started, evolved, and influenced history---without being commanded to "believe" or accept all of the messages, rules, promises, threats, etc. This is increasingly important to me as I learn about the myriad variables involved because of the passage of time, layers of translations, different interpretations, and political influences. In short, I appreciate your work and the information you provide for us.
Your stance chimes with that of every ethical professional: having a self that is respected, having an independent functioning brain, using that brain's marvellous capacity to seek, ingest and digest facts without contamination by age, gender, pigment, allergies, etc, and reach evidence-based conclusions for rational consideration. The intent is to get peers to review evidence and change behaviour.
As a trained clinician and a human, I have had to follow this to "do no harm". Please keep going: your voice is essential in a field notorious for emotional justifications.
Tanner— I have been following you on Medium for some time before subscribing to this publication on Substack. And I agree that your approach to attempt to keep your own personal beliefs… well… personal is the best approach to have. If your purpose is to provide the general layman with factual information about the development of religion and let the evidence stand on it’s own, it’s important… for us and for you… to keep your own beliefs or lack thereof to be hidden. That way— as the purveyor of knowledge that is often too technical or comprehensive for the average person, to provide that material in a digestible manner for the rest of us, you allow that information to stand on it’s own merits. If we have doubts, we can go to the source material ourselves.
I also appreciate the source material you provide— all academics well respected in their fields.
I continue to look forward to your articles. We hanks so much for sharing this knowledge with the rest of us.
I feel respected and a sense of trust in your writing and research. It's like people discussing a beautiful classical music piece and they can have very different religious and politial views.
So thanks a lot saying it like this.
Thanks so much for your kind words, Ernest. I’m truly honored.
Tanner, your neutral approach is an important element in why I read you. I trust your scholarship, your analysis, and appreciate your fascinating speculations about what might’ve happened if this or that doctrine had or had not taken hold. Politics made visible in the realm of religion! Thank you, friend.
Thank you, Janaia. Exactly. Nobody comes here for spiritual growth, and that's the point.
Thanks for spelling this out, it makes a lot of sense. I have a question though regarding my own writing. If I point out what I feel are real world harms caused by a particular belief, am I abandoning objectivity?
Not at all, as long as you're upfront with your reader that what you're pointing to is your own read on the harms, what you believe rather than what you claim to know for certain. To me, objectivity is about staying honest with yourself and your audience, not about pretending you have no perspective.
Hi Seth, your question is well framed. In my practice I have often been guided by instinct that has been nurtured by thinkers like Tanner. I have learned to trust this massive parallel pattern-seeking processor's working to deal with the unexpected that my conscious mind cannot do. Not perfect and not "feeling" or belief. Often only understood later. Often with good results, sometimes not. I frame it accurately as "I think...": objective facts context. Having emotions is human and must be presented as "I feel": valid in that context.
I couldn't agree more. I read your answer after I'd replied to Seth, so I wouldn't be influenced, and I'm glad to see that what you're describing is exactly how my thought process works.
A reader who believes that God wrote the books of the Bible through men will have a problem with any scholarship that casts doubt on their authenticity. A divinely inspired author, to their way of thinking, would not misidentify as Paul.
Spot on. A major issue that needed highlighting.
Some of your work skims theology. I have read that a lot of bible edits are based on theologic reasons. Is free will a theologic topic? Anyway, your posts are excellent. It didnt occur to me that existence of god should be avoided. Your attacker was not justified. Free speech foul. His loss
My religious faith and/or lack thereof has been a confusing part of my life since at least my early 20s. I am glad I found your posts here on Substack. I like learning about religion---how it started, evolved, and influenced history---without being commanded to "believe" or accept all of the messages, rules, promises, threats, etc. This is increasingly important to me as I learn about the myriad variables involved because of the passage of time, layers of translations, different interpretations, and political influences. In short, I appreciate your work and the information you provide for us.
Your stance chimes with that of every ethical professional: having a self that is respected, having an independent functioning brain, using that brain's marvellous capacity to seek, ingest and digest facts without contamination by age, gender, pigment, allergies, etc, and reach evidence-based conclusions for rational consideration. The intent is to get peers to review evidence and change behaviour.
As a trained clinician and a human, I have had to follow this to "do no harm". Please keep going: your voice is essential in a field notorious for emotional justifications.
Tanner— I have been following you on Medium for some time before subscribing to this publication on Substack. And I agree that your approach to attempt to keep your own personal beliefs… well… personal is the best approach to have. If your purpose is to provide the general layman with factual information about the development of religion and let the evidence stand on it’s own, it’s important… for us and for you… to keep your own beliefs or lack thereof to be hidden. That way— as the purveyor of knowledge that is often too technical or comprehensive for the average person, to provide that material in a digestible manner for the rest of us, you allow that information to stand on it’s own merits. If we have doubts, we can go to the source material ourselves.
I also appreciate the source material you provide— all academics well respected in their fields.
I continue to look forward to your articles. We hanks so much for sharing this knowledge with the rest of us.
Your position is a good one, let the argument speak for itself, congrats and good writing.