tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post8930930847077722710..comments2023-11-02T01:20:32.436-07:00Comments on The Forbidden Gospels: A Meditation on Post-ModernityApril DeConickhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06616757055618151612noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-47658664703488149342007-04-05T15:46:00.000-07:002007-04-05T15:46:00.000-07:00Excellent observations. To me the simplicity of t...Excellent observations. To me the simplicity of the bias issue is lost when all biases are treated equal. The point of saying all observations are biased is just to say all observations stand on a point of view. It says nothing about whether the point of view is more or less accurate or more or less imaginary, fanstastic, or delusional. <BR/><BR/>If I stand and look as a mountain or touch a part of the elephant, I have a biased view of what it is like. But it may be an accurate view from that slant. However if I look at a mountain and see a volcano when there is none, or touch an elephant and feel dragon scales where there are none, then my view is not only biased but false. That is the difference where those with false views assert their views are just as credible as anyone else's because all views are biased or slanted based on the viewpoint of the observer.Alan Gregory Wonderwheelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00186755261777539572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-45360442478966778062007-02-21T12:07:00.000-08:002007-02-21T12:07:00.000-08:00The irony here is that Christians have as much pro...The irony here is that Christians have as much problem with post-modern scholarship as does Dr. DeConick here. Post-modernism looks to undercut all meta-narratives (narratives which claim to have universal application) so is corrosive both to the modern meta-narrative so ably set out on this blog and the Christian one. While some Christians embrace it, many are just as cautious about post-modernity's slide into relativism and nihilism as Dr. DeConick might ask. <BR/><BR/>What many Christians are doing (including me) is to use the post-modern critique of modernism to show it to be just another meta-narrative and that its claims to universality are either greatly exagerrated or,worse, intended to submerge other meta-narratives by taking the high ground. I don't have a problem with someone working within a modernist frame of reference. I spent a long time in grad school working in that way. I do have a problem when we start claiming that the only legitimate historical research can only come out of this tradition. That, I suggest, is manifestly untrue. <BR/><BR/>The other irony is that, excepting my usual quibble with the term, impartial (fair is a much less loaded word, I think), I have no problem with Dr. DeConick's program as presented in the last paragraph. We do need to know our own biases. We do need to use critical thought and reason against both them and our own research. We do have to be fair to our sources. However, this is not unique to a modernist program. <BR/><BR/>Peace, <BR/>PhilPhil Sniderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08944477827816680359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536854065433425156.post-32575012635437733522007-02-21T06:06:00.000-08:002007-02-21T06:06:00.000-08:00April, I think your comments are right on target. ...April, I think your comments are right on target. I appreciate scholars who are upfront about their biases and their critical methods. For what its worth, my criteria for judging historical reconstuctions is how well a particular reconstruction accounts for the data. If it cannot account for parts of the data, then clearly it the reconstruction has shortcomings, if not outright faults. I think this is especially important for text based interpretations and reconstructions.Bookdoctorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10591400082428521061noreply@blogger.com