#11877: — 12/25  at  02:13 PM
Good Lord.

Whatever you happen to think of him, Nelson Glueck is among the foremost ME archaeologists in history. If you think that by slurring his scientific reputation despite his immense scientific productivity, you can somehow prove that the Old Testament and other textual evidence should be ignored as sources of archaeological information, then I'm really afraid you're barking up the wrong tree here. That would be asinine on its face.

When all is said and done, archaeologists need to consider all available sources, period. There is no coherent argument against this fact; there is no appeal. You can't change it, and you can't refute it by saying "So-and-so erred by taking the OT as objective reportage; therefore, the OT is out the window of archaeology; furthermore, this constitutes a license to disregard major events reported therein." Science just doesn't work that way.

Of course, if you insist on taking this as a justification for attempting to interfere with pz's satisfaction of his moral and scientific obligations, I can't stop you. But those obligations stand nonetheless.

#11878: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/25  at  02:39 PM
Rabbi Nelson Glueck is the guy who is widely quoted as having said:

No archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.

If that be the case, then clearly archaeology has severe problems of methodology on its own, because it then overtly conflicts with not only physical science but history. Indeed, this statement, whether taken out of context or not, is widely used to support creationism.

Irrespective of Rabbi Glueck's reputation, his viewpoint has a few problems of consistency with physical evidence.

I suspect the problem is not with archaeology and anthropology, which seem pretty modern and scientific from what I have seen, but, rather, Glueck's own brand of archaeology, which he may have considered the only legitimate archaeology.

Rabbi Gunther Plaut's own edit of the Torah, embracing biblical criticism as strongly as it did--and heavily criticized itself for doing so--is considered pretty conservative these days, apologizing for things the text itself says, and explaining them away.

#11882: — 12/25  at  06:15 PM
What have I done to make Neurode shun my responses? Perhaps they "fly in the face of archaeological fact and tradition"? If this is true I can only assume this is because I am trained (somewhat) in a mainstream empirical branch of archaeology with which s/he isn't familiar, and this is something for which I cannot apologise at all.

Neurode wrote:
Nelson Glueck is among the foremost ME archaeologists in history. If you think that by slurring his scientific reputation despite his immense scientific productivity, you can somehow prove that the Old Testament and other textual evidence should be ignored as sources of archaeological information, then I’m really afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree here. That would be asinine on its face.

If criticising a scientist's work as inaccurate, is a "slur", Neurode simply doesn't understand science; and where has anyone here written that "textual evidence should be ignored as sources of archaeological information". I certainly haven't.

I wrote:
If you mean it in a very very general sense - studying the Romans perhaps, I still don’t see how studying religious mythology (especially when there are many Classical period writers who are incredibly more relevant)has particular relevance to a dig, for example, on Hadrian’s Wall.
[new italics]

How can some textual evidence be more relevant than other pieces if it all should be ignored? Neurode appears to have heard of the ad hominem, but not the straw man. Ah well.

Neurode wrote:
When all is said and done, archaeologists need to consider all available sources, period.

All available sources? Er, does that mean Egyptologists should consider "The Mummy Returns"?

Neurode wrote
[...] you can’t refute it by saying “So-and-so erred by taking the OT as objective reportage; therefore, the OT is out the window of archaeology; furthermore, this constitutes a license to disregard major events reported therein.

The (il)logical progression which Neurode describes is his/her own invention, and contrast markedly with the points I, for example have made: that often religious mythology isn't relevant to what archaeologists are investigating; secondly that religious texts can often be unreliable as sources of historical information.
I can't see any controversy in either statement.

Neurode wrote:
Of course, if you insist on taking this as a justification for attempting to interfere with pz’s satisfaction of his moral and scientific obligations, I can’t stop you. But those obligations stand nonetheless.

I see no signs of "moral and scientific obligations" going unsatisfied. I do however see one poster who obviously hasn't simply watched the Indiana Jones films and decided they are an authority on archaeology but unfortunately, might as well have done.

I hope this person, and all the rest of you have had a very Merry Christmas.

#11886: mattH — 12/25  at  08:25 PM

When all is said and done, archaeologists need to consider all available sources, period. There is no coherent argument against this fact; there is no appeal.

As tigerbear said, no one has said that textual material is ignored or discounted out of hand, but we don't consider each source to be equal, and for good reason. "Historical" texts are often the least reliable of all sources, and are treated as such, especially when it contradicts the data that is unearthed.

I'm not "slurring his scientific reputation", as he's already done as much himself. No matter how much he has done as far as discovering new sites, or how much earth he has turned, that's not scientific productivity. It's his own research design and shoehorned interpretations that he has been judged on, and he's been found to be lacking in most cases. If you don't believe me, by all means, provide me with a case of a number of citations that aren't narrow or in the context of a refutation.

#11888: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/25  at  09:04 PM
I think a lot of this can be understood in terms of the sets of assumptions an investigator begins with. In these areas it would be very useful to have these stated clearly. Admittedly some fields or schools of inquiry are defined by precisely which sets of assumptions they share. Nevertheless, it's useful for inter-field and inter-school discussion to make these very "up front" and clear.

I also think a lot of scientific archaeology is seen as threatening to theological and historical positions, probably even political positions. For example, it is becoming clearer by the year that the historical event called "The Exodus" probably never happened. This is not because of any implausibility of "Sea of Reeds" parting or any such thing but, rather, that Canaan was an Egyptian territory and enclave through much of the time it was supposed to have occurred. There is even evidence of Israelite soldiers in pharoah's army manning border forts at the time. So, a mass escape from Egypt would deposit itself into the midst of more Egyptians.

Does this make the story of the Exodus silly? No, of course not. It is a formative myth, like the Illiad and Odyssey are for ancient Greece. It tells the personality and coming of age of a people. It's a great story.

Similarly, Masada is apparently fictional. Should people stop telling the tale? Would they? Nahhh.

What's silly, to me, is trying to go out and "prove" these are so. It's kind of like hiking to the top of Mount Olympus to verify the kinds of sandals Zeus wore.

Ditto, IMO, trying to base positions, practices, and ideas of modern Christianity on results from the "search for the historical Jesus". It's likely the results, if obtainable, would not be to modern Christianity's liking. The people closest to the historical Jesus (assuming he lived; probably did: smoke and fire) were killed off by the Romans in the seventh decade CE along with the Jewish residents of Jerusalem.

Oh well. It happens.

But why do these folks feel so threatened by this stuff? Or by the scientific fact of evolution? I do not dig that at all.

#11889: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/25  at  09:07 PM

For example, it is becoming clearer by the year that the historical event called “The Exodus” probably never happened.

Rather, quotes should have been like:

For example, it is becoming clearer by the year that the “historical event called The Exodus” probably never happened.

#11900: — 12/26  at  05:16 AM
I see that the discussion continues.

First, Nelson Glueck left the field of ME archaeology much richer in raw data than when he found it. Thus, he initially lacked the advantage of being able to check his methods and hypotheses against his own eventual discoveries (an advantage with which he helped to provide for his critics). In Glueck's day, less dirt had been turned, and the temptation was that much greater to use the OT as an organizing framework; driven by the unrealistic expectations of financiers, archaeologists needed ways to tentatively organize hundreds of isolated digs into a big picture with scope and continuity. Clearly, nothing could touch the OT for that purpose. After all, in the first half of the 20th century, its historicity was not so clouded; Glueck's critics hadn't yet gotten around to attacking its archaeological applications, partially because he hadn't yet contributed the wherewithal. Was Glueck perfect? Clearly not; he seems to have tested the OT envelope well beyond its limits. But then again, the envelope did need to be tested, and science advances not because scientists and their ideas are perfect, but by recognizing and correcting their imperfections after the fact. If we know better now, it is only because hindsight approaches 20-20 as lensed through the achievements of Glueck and others of that era.

On a related note, I find tigerbear's incoherent rambling about arguments from authority and ad hominem arguments a little annoying. I'm not the one who's been invoking ad hominem argumentation against (arguably) one of the greatest and most productive ME archaeologists of all time, and if using a quote by this gentleman amounts to an "argument from authority" despite the absolute, unmistakeable necessity of utilizing relevant textual sources in archaeological investigations, then everybody who has ever quoted somebody else in support of a position is guilty of "arguing from authority". That's plainly absurd - argument from authority becomes excessive only when one's whole argument is based solely on appeals to what somebody else has said or done. One scarcely needs to use that approach in order to make the point that any ME archaeologist who ignores the OT has rocks in his head. National Geographic has every right, and every obligation, to report on a purported expedition to investigate an event prominently reported in the Old Testament, and they are in no way "lying to children" by doing so.

No more diversions, please. Self-professed antireligious bigot pz (check out his Xmas Day Post) needs to - now, how should I put this - "come to Jesus" on the issue of antireligious bigotry and apologize, hat in hand and eyes on the ground, to the staff of a venerable science periodical which has done more for the image of science than pz could do in a hundred lifetimes. That's what he owes, and in the end, life has a marvelous way of extracting what people owe. Better to pay up on one's own terms than wait for the terms to be set to one's disadvantage.

Argue as you please, but wrong is still wrong.

#11904: — 12/26  at  09:38 AM

Neurode wrote:

On a related note, I find tigerbear’s incoherent rambling about arguments from authority and ad hominem arguments a little annoying.

I find it odd that I'm accused of "incoherent rambling" by someone who's latest post appears to have conceded all points about Nelson Glueck, the archaeologist to whom they referred to when making their argument in the first place.

Since the only reason for bringing this archaeologist's work up in the first place was in relation to this:

Neurode wrote:
Now, here’s what Dr. Glueck had to say about Old Testament archaeology:

“It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a biblical reference.”

... only for this poster to go on to write in their most recent post:

Neurode wrote:
Was Glueck perfect? Clearly not; he seems to have tested the OT envelope well beyond its limits.

I can't really see what Neurode has yet to concede apart that s/he has set up a straw man that asserts everyone who has argued here against him thinks religious mythology in general, and the Old Testament in particular, is to be actively ignored by archaeology.
To rehash yet again: no-one has said this. Instead they have merely stated that religious texts often aren't relevant to what archaeologists are doing, and often aren't accurate in what they describe.

Neurode wrote:
I’m not the one who’s been invoking ad hominem argumentation against (arguably) one of the greatest and most productive ME archaeologists of all time, and if using a quote by this gentleman amounts to an “argument from authority” despite the absolute, unmistakeable necessity of utilizing relevant textual sources in archaeological investigations, then everybody who has ever quoted somebody else in support of a position is guilty of “arguing from authority”. That’s plainly absurd - argument from authority becomes excessive only when one’s whole argument is based solely on appeals to what somebody else has said or done. [my italics]

Thus, by Neurode's own description, his response to me (post #30) is guilty of excessive use of the argument from authority. Yet I'm the one guilty of incoherent rambling?

Neurode wrote:
One scarcely needs to use that approach in order to make the point that any ME archaeologist who ignores the OT has rocks in his head.

I find this to be very curiously phrased and essentially inaccurate as an opposing point. MattH, and others such as myself have argued that it simply may not be relevant to what an archaeologist is doing. For example, an archaeologist working on Palaeolithic tool technologies in Israel won't find the Old Testament relevant (there's a bad pun lurking here, btw).

Neurode wrote:
National Geographic has every right, and every obligation, to report on a purported expedition to investigate an event prominently reported in the Old Testament, and they are in no way “lying to children” by doing so.

Yet Neurode also argues the Old Testament has apparently been tested "well beyond its limits" as an explanatory framework?!

Quite frankly, to argue as Neurode has demeans archaeology as a serious discipline.

#11905: — 12/26  at  12:06 PM
You've got to be kidding.

First, tigerbear, if my last post "appears to have conceded all points about Nelson Glueck," then I'm afraid you've been deceived by appearances. I've merely allowed that any archaeologist stands to be gainsaid by those who come after; that's the nature of the discipline. One possible error was mentioned, Glueck's estimate regarding the occupation of Tell el-Kheleifeh. As I say, a few of these are to be expected, more in some cases than in others.

But it is obviously quite another matter to attack Glueck's scientific reputation wholesale, or to issue a blanket accusation of systematic scientific fraud. I would correctly regard this as ad hominem drivel, I "concede" nothing in this regard, and I would ask that if you can't make distinctions of this kind, you keep your views to yourself.

As you know, my primary concern has been pz's unjustified attack on National Geographic (at the top of this thread). Thus, from my point of view, your specious interjections are off-topic, diversionary in effect, irrelevant, and in the final analysis, insignificant. I was merely being polite by responding you in the first place, and would ask that you bear this in mind. In particular, please refrain from ascribing to me any opinions I do not hold or concessions I have not made.

Do have a nice day.

#11907: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/26  at  02:10 PM

In Glueck’s day, less dirt had been turned, and the temptation was that much greater to use the OT as an organizing framework; driven by the unrealistic expectations of financiers, archaeologists needed ways to tentatively organize hundreds of isolated digs into a big picture with scope and continuity. Clearly, nothing could touch the OT for that purpose.

Aw, c'mon! Biblical criticism had been around for a century by the time he started.

#11911: — 12/26  at  06:16 PM
Neurode, you conceded a general point about Glueck, one which you made without qualification.

Neurode wrote:Was Glueck perfect? Clearly not; he seems to have tested the OT envelope well beyond its limits.

There was no reference to Tell el-Kheleifeh in this statement and no specification of a particular instance of his explanatory framework overreaching itself. It is a generalist point about his work, and thus a concession.

I'm afraid oscillating between strong and weak versions of your own position in different posts merely shows a lack of confidence in your own argument, however much you'd like to assert that others are misreading you.

Oddly, those who've argued against you here have managed to clearly argue the same points throughout (where is Ophelia Benson when you need her?), and have not needed to resort to straw men or dodging people's responses with offhand comments (as you've done yet again with me) without actually rebutting their points.

I'd obviously prefer it if you'd accept that the level of incoherence in your posts is so high that you manage to fail your own definition of an excessive argument from authority in post #30. (If you disagree, you could argue how this isn't the case)

I'd also like to know why a archaeologist working on Palaeolithic tool technologies in Israel needs to read the Old Testament or be considered stupid, and exactly why Egyptologists should concern themselves with such ephemeral sources as "The Mummy Returns" (your opponents here would say they wouldn't be relevant, what would you say which would be consistent with your prior posts?).

Searching Mt. Ararat for Noah's Ark is not serious archaeology. Its the plot of an unmade Indiana Jones movie. I'd love for you to explain in detail how, actually, it is serious archaeology after all (rather than simply quote-mining several academics who have nice things to say about the historical accuracy of the Old Testament).
I'd suspect you can't, or you'd have done it earlier.

I am, by the way, having a rather good day. This has been very amusing.

#11919: Arcane — 12/26  at  07:01 PM
Wow, you atheists have an almost Nazi-like hatred for anybody and anything religious in nature. Do you guys fantasize about sending religious people to gas chambers, as well?

And it is well known that myths and religious texts are used regularly by archaeologists either as theological references for developing an objective history of what actually happened (and possibly to develop confirmation as to whether the text is correct in some regards) or for purposes of finding landmarks and such. There are MANY Biblical archaeologists out there, and many peer-reviewed, archaeological journals that cover the subject.

What a bunch of ideological, irrational, hatred-filled dumbasses you guys are.

#11925: Ebonmuse — 12/26  at  07:37 PM
The Nazis were the ones who wore belt buckles that said "God With Us". 'Nuff said.

I agree that religious texts are used by Near East archaeologists to locate historical places. The problem is that when we actually find the places, the stories they tell through the evidence we uncover is totally unlike the stories the texts provide. For example, it is now widely accepted among professional archaeologists that the patriarchs probably never lived, the Exodus never happened, and Joshua's conquest never happened. Noah's flood and the Tower of Babel are likewise viewed as the myths they are, as both of them are totally uncorroborated by any evidence. You might try actually reading some of those peer-reviewed archaeological journals you so confidently appeal to.

#11927: Arcane — 12/26  at  07:59 PM
Ebon,
And you're the one who uses money that says "In God We Trust." If you think that everybody who is religious is a Nazi, then you're just an idiot and must have a seething hatred for this country and our civilization.

About this:
I agree that religious texts are used by Near East archaeologists to locate historical places. The problem is that when we actually find the places, the stories they tell through the evidence we uncover is totally unlike the stories the texts provide.

If you actually read what I said, you would see that I never said anything about the texts actually being 100% correct. What I said is that they use them as references, which is true!

And I do read those journals. My house here has dozens of books about archaeology.

#11928: Arcane — 12/26  at  08:02 PM
Oh, and one other thing. It was the atheist Communists who rejected that a god existed who murdered eight times as many people as those pagan Nazis. Find other strawmen to use.

#11929: — 12/26  at  08:37 PM
Arcane,

Noone here has demonstrated any hate except you and noone has compared anyone to the Nazis except you. In fact you have managed to violate Godwin's Law in your very first post.

Another thing that noone here has done is claim that archaeolgists do not often use mythological texts as part of their work. That is your very own strawman and one that has absolutely nothing to do with pz's original post.

Moreover, your absurd theory of athiest "hatred" is both completely unfounded and a red herring from your own fevered imagination.

#11930: — 12/26  at  08:54 PM
Neurode: "Was Glueck perfect? Clearly not; he seems to have tested the OT envelope well beyond its limits."

tigerbear: "There was no reference to Tell el-Kheleifeh in this statement and no specification of a particular instance of his explanatory framework overreaching itself. It is a generalist point about his work, and thus a concession."

You're not paying attention, are you, tigerbear? Or perhaps the English language simply isn't your strong suit, or perhaps you erroneously think you're being clever. "Testing (or stretching) the envelope well beyond its limits" requires only a single instance of testing. To convey more than that, one would say (e.g.) "*always* testing the envelope well beyond its limits".

To boldly generalize from the single granted instance in this entire dialogue, namely, Tell el-Kheleifeh, to "always", or indeed, to anything more than the single instance in question, is really, so to speak, "stretching the envelope". (See how it only took you a single instance of stretching to do that, even after I'd carefully informed you that your former statement about "conceding all points" was inaccurate?)

Such flagrant abuses of the English language hardly imply that your criticisms are to be taken seriously, particularly after you were politely asked not to insert your half-baked opinions or impressions into other people's mouths without their permission. Consequently, I don't take them seriously, and neither does anyone else with half a brain.

But for future reference, if you want to make general statements that you can be sure of, make them for yourself. Leave me and others out of it.

#11931: Arcane — 12/26  at  09:05 PM
Brent,
Tell me what I have said that is hateful. You're violating a law of science: back up everything you say with quotes and source material. I haven't said anything that is hateful, although some of you guys have said things such as this:

PZ: "Time to cancel your National Geographic subscriptions, everyone" [because NG covered something religious. How dare they?]

As for this:
Moreover, your absurd theory of athiest “hatred” is both completely unfounded and a red herring from your own fevered imagination.

Perhaps you should see PZ's post about a cathedral in New York City, which he says he had a "visceral revulsion" to, that he felt "nothing but contempt" about, is "wicked," and part of a "rotting heart of evil" in New York City (I guess he likes dualistic religious doctrines).

#11932: — 12/26  at  09:36 PM
"What a bunch of ideological, irrational, hatred-filled dumbasses you guys are."

Did you already forget you had written it? I would add that your suggestion that we might be the sort of people who fantasize about mass murder is also pretty hateful but perhaps that does not count as such in your definition.

Moreover your summary of pz's original post again comes more from your own imagination than anything stated in the post. It has nothing to do with whether National Geographic "covered something religious" as you put it. It is that they discuss religion as if it is the same as science. The fact that you equate his offense at this and his criticism of this as "hatred" tells us a great deal more about your preconceptions than it does about the debate at hand.

As for PZ's separate post about the cathedral, there might be something more to argue about there but that would really be something to address with PZ as opposed to the open class of "you athiests."

Brent

#11933: — 12/26  at  10:16 PM
Brent: "It is that they discuss religion as if it is the same as science."

Brent, can you prove that the legend of Noah is purely a religious fable with no basis whatsoever in fact, despite its prominent mention in an ancient text known to contain a great deal of factual reportage (irrespective of whether or not it also contains some amount of pure religious mythology)?

In case you don't know the answer, here it is: No, you cannot. Not now, and not ever. Due to its salient mention in the Old Testament, the Noah story is forever in play as an archaeological potential. Since it may or may not have been partially distorted or allegorized, the story is nearly impervious to contrary geological or hydrological evidence.

You say that National Geographic is wrong for recognizing this. But that's probably not the way the vast majority of people would see it. The vast majority would probably see your viewpoint as prejudicial and unpleasantly suggestive of religious bigotry.

Even if the Noah story could somehow be disproven once and for all (and it cannot), National Geographic would have every right to fulfill its journalistic mission by reporting on any and all archaeological expeditions undertaken for purportedly scientific purposes (without necessarily endorsing their scientific credibility).

In pz's original post, there is a link to the article against which he is ranting. Nowhere in this article is it stated that Noah's Ark exists, nor even that it is likely to be found on the top of Mount Ararat or for that matter anywhere else.

Consequently, National Geographic is not "lying to children". Unfortunately, this is what pz has angrily accused them of doing. And because pz's accusation is both serious and false, he needs to apologize.

Do you understand this?

#11934: Chris Clarke — 12/26  at  11:36 PM
Neurode and Arcane:

The alleged "ark site" on Ararat is at approximately 15,000 feet above current sea level. For a boat to land in that spot as waters receded would require the ocean(s) contain more than 560 million cubic miles more water than they do now.

So if this is actual, defensible science, where did that water go?

#11935: Jan Theodore Galkowski — 12/26  at  11:58 PM
And the story of the Flood in Genesis is told on a strong backdrop of other Mesopotamian flood legends and stories, notably the Epic of Gilgamesh. If some hypothetical archaeologist were to plan their assault on the digs using the Books of Moses as their guide, shouldn't they accept and admit the guidance of other story sources, comparable in age and originating in the very same region, with peoples closely allied in heritage to the holders of the Books of Moses?

If such a hypothetical archaeologist did indeed not use these additional sources, then they could rightly be accused of sampling bias. And apologies in their support could not rightly and properly claim religious texts were merely to be used as the basis for exploration. It was one particular religious text.

Incidently, much more about this stuff can be learnt in two books by Nahum Sarna, Understanding Genesis (ISBN 0-8052-0253-6) and Exploring Exodus (ISBN 0-8052-1063-6), both available at amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/index=books&field-author=NAHUM M. SARNA).

#11940: — 12/27  at  10:28 AM
It is permissible, of course, to doubt that Noah's Ark would be found atop Mount Ararat even if it existed.

However, in this particular case, the would-be expeditioners were reportedly galvanized by a satellite image that bears interpretation as some sort of large man-made artifact (which would be of possible scientific interest no matter what it was). Given that allowances must always be made for imponderables and improbables (e.g. sudden land elevations due to unknown geological mechanisms, piece-by-piece transport of the Ark to high ground, the possibility that the Ark is a metaphor for some more permanent structure where Noah and an assortment of sure-footed animals sequestered themselves against the coming high water, etc.), it is not inconceivable that some highly motivated group of scientists might consider it worth a look.

But again, regardless of such considerations, the central issue is whether National Geographic was necessarily "lying to children" by reporting on such an expedition, or by failing to unleash a scathing pz-approved torrent of antireligious bigotry in their Children's Edition. In fact, the article itself makes it clear that they were not lying in any way, but merely engaging in responsible routine reportage of a proposed archaeological investigation of the satellite image. Therefore, it is a natural and indisputable fact that confirmed antireligious bigot pz owes them a humble apology.

Why try to defend the indefensible? The next move, or failure to move, has to be pz's own.

#11942: Chris Clarke — 12/27  at  11:21 AM

Why try to defend the indefensible?

Interesting question, that.

If I thought PZ had gone overboard in his description - and I emphatically do not - I would call his imagined transgression worth it because of the amusing petulant whining it has provoked from fundies stamping their little feet in indignation.

Demanding an apology be delivered to NatGeo? You've gotta be kidding. A magazine editor myself, I can assure you that we need no defense from the likes of you against the likes of PZ. Were it not for people like PZ, people like you would be forcing us to print your dogmatic religious garbage.

#11944: — 12/27  at  11:37 AM
Excuse me, but you know nothing about me. And by your asinine continued defense of an inexcusable accusation, any reasonable party knows that your opinion on virtually any subject, plus a dime, leaves you nine dimes short of a dollar. So why don't you take your obscure little e-zine, whatever that happens to be, and retire to the shadows?

As I say, pz owes an apology, and nobody but an idiot could possibly doubt it.