There are fixed ideas that I sometimes affectionately call “atheistic creationism”: beliefs with no real basis that end up seeming very attractive to supposedly dogma-free people. One of them, which I already addressed years ago in this column, is that there is no human nature and that everything is a “social construct.” And there is another that always comes back to haunt me when I write about the history of religions. This is the thesis according to which Jesus of Nazareth never existed. Spoiler: this is almost as pseudo-scientific a belief as claiming that the pyramids were made by extraterrestrials.
Explaining the evidence for the historical existence of Christ would require much more space than I have available here (and is something I have also done in detail previously in this article). Leaf). However, I would like to take a step back and think about the what-ifs a bit.
Firstly, the comparison with ideas such as “aliens from the past” is explained by the fact that it is practically impossible to find serious historians and archaeologists who defend the thesis of the “mythical Christ”. The same goes for publications in peer-reviewed academic journals – the process by which the academic community evaluates a new study before publication.
What is curious about this affair is the proverbial use of double standards. Some of those who don’t give credence to climate crisis denialism – because, after all, they know that the few people with scientific credentials who deny the problem in general are not climate scientists, have never published in a serious journal on the subject, have ideological and financial motivations for denialism or all of that – end up giving credence to the “mythicists” who follow the same group.
Modern scientific consensuses exist for good reason. And they almost always change when there is strong evidence in favor of changing them, which is not the case here. And there is no convincing explanation for the supposed invention of a Jewish Messiah if the idea was to convert non-Jews to a new religion.
There is yet another problem underlying this story. It is the all-too-human habit of clinging to any argument useful to one’s side, however fragile it may be. The problem, however, remains the obvious chasm that exists between acceptance of the existence of the historical figure of Jesus of Nazareth – a prophet from Galilee crucified by the Romans around 30 AD – and belief in the divine Lord heralded by any of the many Christian denominations.
It is clear that the historical consensus on Jesus refers to the first character and not the second. The debates between historians on the more or less probable details of the life of the first character are fierce and still undecided (just like the debates on Alexander, or on Nero, or on any other character of Antiquity). But none of these debates will ever be enough to “prove” that the Nazarene performed miracles or rose from the dead on the third day, as the Creed says, simply because events of this type are not verifiable by the scientific method and can only be accepted by faith.
So here’s a tip for fellow atheists and agnostics: the case for disbelief is already quite strong. There is no need to throw a tantrum against the historical consensus simply because of what was done to the inheritance of a poor Galilean. Merry Christmas everyone!
PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click on the blue F below.
About The Author
