These are visuals for my podcast episode Knowledge and Self Deception.
According to traditional philosophy definitions, knowledge is based on three criteria: belief, truth, and justification.
I found the following visuals to be helpful in understanding the concept of knowledge better. I put the visuals in order by simplicity.
Background
A few of my closest friends are Christians who I argue with about religion, mostly their religion. Because of them, I'm often reading, listening, and thinking about religions, especially Christianity. More recently it started with Wes Huff on Rogan's podcast. That sparked an ongoing discussion about Christianity. One that has included Alex O'Connor.
Huff and O'Connor led me to Elaine Pagels. Her book, Miracles and Wonder: The Historical Mystery of Jesus, was a great introduction into the varying sources of information about Jesus and the early Christians. Overall, I think Bart Ehrman has better historical scholarship.
Pagels became famous for her book The Gnostic Gospels (1979). This book was heavily awarded and recognized. The following is from the book's description:
In 1945 an Egyptian peasant unearthed what proved to be the Gnostic Gospels, thirteen papyrus volumes that expounded a radically different view of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ from that of the New Testament. In this spellbinding book, renowned religious scholar Elaine Pagels elucidates the mysteries and meanings of these sacred texts both in the world of the first Christians and in the context of Christianity today.
Introduction
Everything I present is ignoring divine intervention. With divine intervention anything is possible. Logic doesn't matter with divine intervention. If one can believe in divine intervention they can easily any issues I would have.
Without divine intervention, how can and does anyone know if the Gospels and early Christian texts are accurate?
Here is a very good argument:
Premise 1: The New Testament documents were written by eyewitnesses or close associates of eyewitnesses.
Premise 2: Eyewitnesses are generally reliable sources of historical information, especially when accounts are consistent and corroborated.
Premise 3: The New Testament writings have been reliably preserved through manuscript transmission.
Premise 4: The New Testament accounts are internally consistent and externally corroborated (by archaeology, early Church Fathers, etc.).
Conclusion: Therefore, the New Testament is a historically legitimate and trustworthy source for the life, teachings, death, and resurrection of Jesus.
I would generally agree that the NT is a historically legitimate and trustworthy source.
What about the Gnostic texts and gospels?
Back to Pagels
Pagels is not an atheist. I do not think she would consider herself a Christian either (maybe she would?). Either way, she outlines the progression of ideas about Jesus from the canonical and non-canonical texts. When analyzing from this progression, it becomes clear that the early Christians were a diverse group of followers. Followers with many opposing and varying views on who Jesus was and what Jesus said.
When viewing the early Christian texts in chronological order, it is clearer to see how and why details about Jesus could have been added without being literally true. The early Christian writers had agendas. They wanted to legitimize their messiah. They added details to solve some of the biggest concerns about who Jesus was. They used the Old Testament and prophecies to fill gaps. They elevated Jesus’ status to Son of Man, like other great men of his time, and eventually that grew into Jesus being God. When tracking the progression in order, it’s clear.
Pagels outlines the progression magnificently in her book. She offers multiple explanations and builds context for readers to understand better how the early Christians, authors, and audience may have thought and understood the ideas and events in the texts.
Due to recency bias, a lot of my ideas will be heavily influenced by Pagels.
Some Problem with Jesus
A gigantic problem with Jesus was that he died! How could he be the Messiah if he was dead?
Jesus was born illegitimately.
Jesus was from Nazareth.
Jesus was killed by the Romans.
Jesus gave secret teachings to his closest followers.
The list goes on...
Fixing the Problems
The NT solves these problems.
Yes, Jesus died, but he was resurrected. He wasn’t just the Messiah; He is God. He knew He was going to die, and He died for humanity's salvation.
Yes, Jesus was an illegitimate child because he was born of immaculate conception.
Yes, Jesus was from Nazareth, but he was born in Bethlehem. He either had to move because people wanted to kill him or his parents had to go to Bethlehem for a census.
Yes, Romans crucified Jesus, but that is because the Jewish authorities made poor Pilate do something against his will.
Yes, Jesus says in Mark 4:11, "He told them, “The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables."
The most likely earliest Gnostic text is The Gospel of Thomas. In it, the author claims to be sharing the secret teaching of Jesus.
Some of the Secret Teachings from Thomas
(1) And he said: “Whoever finds the meaning of these words will not taste death.”
(3) Jesus said, "[If] those who lead you [say to you, 'See], the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky [will precede you. If they say that] it is under the earth, then the fish of the sea [will enter it, preceding] you. And, the [kingdom of God] is inside of you, [and it is outside of you. Whoever] knows [himself] will discover this. [And when you] come to know yourselves, [you will realize that] you are [sons] of the [living] father. [But if you] will [not] know yourselves, [you dwell] in [poverty] and it is you who are that poverty."
(13) I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended.
(70) When you bring forth that which is within yourselves, this that you have shall save you. If you do not have that within yourselves, this which you do not have within you will kill you.
(77) It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there.
According to Thomas, Jesus has a different theology about salvation. One that doesn't rely on churches, bishops, or priests. One based on knowledge and not belief.
John solves this problem by turning Thomas into Doubting Thomas. John discredits the Gospel of Thomas and the followers of Thomas by turning Thomas into the dummy that doesn't believe anything. Mark, Matthew, nor Luke mention anything about Thomas’ character. This isn't proof of anything, but it begs the question. Did John add Thomas' doubts to delegitimatize Thomas and his gospel.
The Rise of Christian Orthodoxy
Bishop Irenaeus, an extremely influential early Christian, wrote Against Heresies. He was against the Gnostic teachings and ideas. He is the first known Christian to make a case for the four canonical Gospels today: Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John. At Irenaeus’ time, Christians followed varying numbers of Gospels. Groups might have followed just one gospel or mixed and matched. Irenaeus loved the Gospel of John and thought John was the most important Gospel. With time, orthodoxy was shaped by the varying groups and ideas in the early church.
By the 4th century, the NT became a set canon that has mostly been unaltered. The canonization created several obstacles for the non-canonical texts, including censorship and destruction. Few would survive.
Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria stands out for his condemnation of the heretical texts. In his Easter letter, he listed the 27 books of the New Testament for the first time in the exact form we have today. In the letter he also condemned the heretical texts. There isn't evidence for this, but his influence is likely a contributing factor in the destruction of the heretical books, Gnostic texts and non-canonical texts. To keep it very simple, this was the rise of Christian Orthodoxy and the New Testament (NT) as we know it.
Along with the destruction of the heretical texts, was the destruction of alternative interpretations. Gnosticism became heretical. The church started an ideological cleansing. With the imperial support of Emperor Constantine, the bishops and churches had the power to enforce orthodoxy.
There is a huge problem here. The church and bishops denied access to information. Information that many early Christians were persecuted and died for. People for over 1,500 years were ignorant of the non-canonical texts. They accepted the claims of early Christian scholars, like Irenaeus, who said the non-canonical texts were dangerous and heresies. But for over 1500 years people couldn’t decide for themselves.
Luckily, some Christian monks hid some of these texts (divine intervention??). Are they the dangerous heretical texts Irenaeus and Athanasius feared?
Non-Canonical Texts
People can read some of the destroyed heretical texts. The texts can be scrutinized and analyzed by the same logic that is used on the NT. People can choose for themselves how likely, heretical, or dangerous the texts are.
Most of the non-canonical texts seem to be 2nd to 3rd century. It's difficult to say because the books were banned and destroyed. For some of the texts only fragments have been discovered, for most only references from ancient Christian writings. Still, although debated, scholars seem to mostly agree that most of the known non-canonical texts are most likely from the 2nd and 3rd centuries.
This would make them further removed from eyewitnesses and associates, and thus would make them less reliable. But still, following the formal logic above for the canonical gospels, they could still be a useful sources of information. They can add corroborations to both non-canonical texts and the NT.
Is is possible that Jesus gave secret teachings? Is it possible that one or some of these Gnostic texts have preserved any of Jesus' secret teachings?
It is possible. The followers of Thomas certainly thought so. It unclear exactly what early Christians thought. They were obviously a diverse group of people with diverse and wide ranges of ideas. But it is not clear how prevalent the ideas were.
If the early Christians were closer to eye witnesses and associates shouldn’t they know better than 4th century bishops? It’s important to consider the early Christian when analyzing the life and teachings of Jesus.
There are over 30 known non-canonical gospels of Jesus. These texts were mentioned by early church fathers, like Irenaeus and Eusebius. Today there are at least fragments of 15 non-canonical gospels of Jesus.
The following is a table of know Gospels, estimated dates, and a very brief note of each book.
Almost Final Thoughts
The 30 plus gospels cannot all be true because they have direct contradictions. This proves that people could write inaccurate gospels and texts about Jesus. God and or the universe allowed it. So people have to decide which gospels, which ideas, etc are more or less likely and or true.
A friend of mine thinks God put everything in the Bible exactly how it should be. This is the divine intervention that cannot really be debated.
Would that make the Monks saving the Gnostic texts also divine intervention? Man tried to destroy it, but God wouldn’t allow it. We can imagine a future with more texts and fragments discovered, would that be divine intervention too?
Is God or men saving and destroying these texts and ideas?
Why should and shouldn't we accept the 4th century conclusions?
Using the formal logical above, we could broaden the scope of the NT. The non-canonical texts could have been written by or preserved from eyewitnesses or close associates of Jesus. Most of the ideas are consistent with and could corroborate other canonical and non-canonical texts.
Conclusion
Monks in Egypt saved these books for a reason. They thought they were too important to destroy. If humanity is lucky, the remaining fragments and texts will be discovered too. Then scholars and people in general can have a fuller picture of Jesus and the early Christians.
In the end, men wrote these texts. Men vetted the texts. Men successfully and unsuccessfully tried to destroy the texts. Men decided on the heretical and canonical texts. It's all men.
With divine intervention, one just opens a new can of worms. How does one separate divine intervention from what humans do? It's not possible.
If one wants to use divine intervention for peace of mind, I'm all for that. But is that any different than saying I like this better because I like this better? It's just following a gut feeling, and that is fine too. I think we all do that naturally anyway. We pick what we like without using logical or reason, then we use logic and reason to justify out choice.
The difference is, people don't admit they just like it better. I don't either. I honestly think I scrutinize the information and make logical conclusions. The ideas presented here are the result of countless books, lectures, articles, hours of thinking, and discussions with friends. I do not take these topics lightly. I'm always learning and improving my understanding, especially of Jesus.
But there is no reason I have found to accept divine intervention. It doesn't solve any problems for me. It only raises more unanswerable problems. Collective knowledge, systems of logic, and the scientific method have allowed humans do answer so many questions about the world. Questions that used to be explained by Gods. The more humans learn, the less God is needed to explain.
Introduction
Chapter 71 of The Book of Enoch is controversial. There may or may not be a claim that Enoch was supposed to be the "Son of Man." And that claim may or may not have been added later on by some transcriber.
Background
I recorded an interview with Greg Dizzia, here is the link. He wrote The Book of Enoch: An Antediluvian Account. I asked him a question about the narrator Enoch referring to himself as the "Son of Man" in his narrative. This baffled Greg, and I didn't have the text available. We skipped the question and moved on. Now, I'm looking back over the text.
The Book of Enoch is closely tied to The Book of Genesis. It tells a story of Fallen Angels and the years leading up to the flood story of Noah. The Book of Enoch has been mostly forgotten. It was likely written in Aramaic and or Hebrew. The the most complete surviving copies are in the Geʽez language. The Books were most likely written in the Second Temple Period although the story is possibly a lot older. Listen to the interview with Greg to hear his take
The Controversy
No surprise to me, there is a controversy and conspiracy that involves a section of the text that relates to Jesus.
The Book of Enoch is written in first person. The narrator claims to be Enoch. In Chapter 71, and only in Chapter 71, Enoch (narrator) states that the Head of Days (God) calls Enoch the "Son of Man." The "Son of Man" is mentioned many other times and not identified directly as Enoch.
But! Some translation do not translate this passage, line 14 specifically, the same.
Others claim Chapter 71 verse 14 is an interpolation.
The Dead Sea Scrolls fragments do not include chapters 37-71 of Enoch. So the interpolation of 71:14 will remain a debate among scholars.
Translations
Here is a link to the original Geez. It appears to me that there might be multiple Ge'ez versions of Enoch too. This would make sense if it was translated from another language. The below translation on the right is from Google Translate.
I'm sure there are several other translation we could cross reference too. For my purposes this is enough.
Conclusion
It's odd that the "Son of Man" is referenced so many times in Enoch, but, then, only directly linked to Enoch once. This makes an interpolation seem probable. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be enough evidence or surviving sources to give a great answer. For most people, I think theology will influence their conclusions.
If the 71:14 belongs, it sounds like Enoch is who God is calling the "Son of Man." Even in the far right translation in the parallel image, it is unclear who the son of man is. A Christian would assume it's Jesus for obvious reasons, but anyone else could very easily assume it was God announcing Enoch to the thousands of angels.
I doubt scholars/people will come to any consensus on this topic without additional archeology findings.
I reread Anna Karenina. The book didn't live up to the hype I gave it the first reading. Below is my review from 2019 when I first read it. Since reading AK for the first time, I have reread War and Peace twice and read more of Tolstoy's nonfiction. I also finished reading The Neapolitan Quartet by Elena Ferrante prior to rereading AK. It might be unfair to any book to have to follow Ferrante's Quartet!
Overall, I dropped AK from 5 stars to 3 stars. I still liked it, but the characters all kind of sucked in one way or another. I think this was very intentional by Tolstoy. Tolstoy thought the elites sucked. It's clear to see now after learning more about Tolstoy.
Below is my original 2019 5 Star Review
Anna Karenina has all the drama and philosophy of War and Peace. Pending a reread of War and Peace, I like Anna Karenina better.
The relationships, character perspectives, and descriptions are perfect. Most books I read now, I can critique and find problems with. Tolstoy is flawless. His descriptions don't drag. The ideas are still fresh and relevant; it's hard to believe it was written 150 years ago. From feminism to class issues to existential crises, the book keeps you engaged and caring about all the characters and relationships. It's hard for me to care about rich people, but Tolstoy pulled it off!
The juxtaposition between the main characters and two main relationships provide a lot of food for thought both literally and philosophically. The story was originally called Two Marriages. Good call changing it, that titled sucks.
5 Stars Reread Results
Here are my five star rereads that kept their five stars:
Here are the nowhere near five stars:
"The mind is its own place, and in it self
Can make a Heav'n of Hell, a Hell of Heav'n. [ 255 ]
What matter where, if I be still the same,
And what I should be, all but less then he
Whom Thunder hath made greater? Here at least
We shall be free; th' Almighty hath not built
Here for his envy, will not drive us hence: [ 260 ]
Here we may reign secure, and in my choyce
To reign is worth ambition though in Hell:
Better to reign in Hell, then serve in Heav'n.
But wherefore let we then our faithful friends,
Th' associates and copartners of our loss [ 265 ]
Lye thus astonisht on th' oblivious Pool,
And call them not to share with us their part
In this unhappy Mansion, or once more
With rallied Arms to try what may be yet
Regaind in Heav'n, or what more lost in Hell? [ 270 ]"
"βουλοίμην κ᾽ ἐπάρουρος ἐὼν θητευέμεν ἄλλῳ,
ἀνδρὶ παρ᾽ ἀκλήρῳ, ᾧ μὴ βίοτος πολὺς εἴη,
ἢ πᾶσιν νεκύεσσι καταφθιμένοισιν ἀνάσσειν."
"I would rather be a laborer working for another man—some poor man who has little to live on—than rule over all the dead who have perished." GPT Literal Translation
A Brief Look at Milton's Interpretations
One way to read Satan is as the hero of Paradise Lost. Satan is the individualistic, defiant hero representing personal freedom. "The mind is its own place." Even if in Hell, in Paradise Lost, Satan has freedom to choose."For my mother the goddess, silver-footed Thetis, tells meAccording to what Achilles says, he gets to choose. He eventually chooses kleos (glory) after his friend Patroclus is killed in battle by Hector. Achilles dies young but his glory lives on. (He was played by Brad Pitt in Troy!)
that two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight,
I shall not return alive, but my glory will be undying forever.
If I return home to my dear fatherland, my glory is lost,
but my life will be long, and death will not come to me quickly."
"Say not a word," he replied, "in death’s favor; I would rather be a paid servant in a poor man's house and be above ground than king of kings among the dead."
"Let me hear no smooth talk of death from you, Odysseus,
light of councils. Better, I say, to break sod as a farm hand
for some poor country man, on iron rations,
than lord it over all the exhausted dead."
"O shining Odysseus, never try to console me for dying.
I would rather follow the plow as thrall to another
man, one with no land allotted him and not much to live on,
than be a king over all the perished dead."
"No winning words about death to me, shining Odysseus!
By god, I’d rather slave on earth for another man—
some dirt-poor tenant farmer who scrapes to keep alive—
than rule down here over all the breathless dead."
"Odysseus, don’t try to sell me on death.
I’d rather be a hired hand back up on earth,
Slaving away for some poor dirt farmer,
Than lord it over all these withered dead."
"For my mother the goddess, silver-footed Thetis, tells meRobert Fagles (1990):
that two fates sweep me on to my death. If I stay here and fight,
I shall not return alive, but my glory will be undying forever.
If I return home to my dear fatherland, my glory is lost,
but my life will be long, and death will not come to me quickly."
"Two fates bear me on to the day of death.
If I hold out here and I lay siege to Troy,
my journey home is gone, but my glory never dies.
If I voyage back to the fatherland I love,
my pride, my glory dies…
true, but the life that's left me will be long,
the stroke of death will not come on me quickly."
Introduction
I like to think of myself as a critical thinker who is open to changing my mind based on evidence and better information. I acknowledge that I most likely delude myself into thinking I am more rational, open minded, and critical of myself than I actually am. So I admit, I must be less critical and rational than I think I am.
Most people think they're open minded. But I see most people very closed off to differing ideas. We all use my side biases, selection biases, confirmation biases, etc. Changing our minds is a good indicator of our open mindedness. It's very unlikely that we knew or know everything at 20, 30, 40 years old, or anyone other age of our lives.
This is going to be a running list of examples of when and how I've changed my opinion about topics of at least some importance.
College was a huge change for me ideologically. Then learning about economics has transformed the way I think. For the most part I feel I haven't changed much at all. When I read things I wrote 10-20 years ago, I'm surprised how much I agree and or think the same. I would say I'm just a lot better informed.
I'm not sure my values have changed. I've always valued freedom, honesty, and generally being a good person.
THE LIST
Vegan- I stopped eating animals in 2008 as an experiment. I kept it up (on and off, somewhat because of traveling) for environmental reasons. Around 2013, I recommitted for animal welfare. I eat mostly vegan to minimize the suffering of animals.
Evolution- I thought evolution was nonsense until I went to college (~2006-7). I don't remember learning about it, but, eventually I learned the theory in biology. Since then, I have read or listened to multiple books on evolution.
Environmentalism- in college (~2008) I took a sustainability course. The professor taught us and played a lot of the alarmism. I remember arguing with people about all the forests being covered in cities in 50-100 years. I think my initial motivation was my love for the outdoors. As I learned more over the years the alarmism wore off. During the pandemic, I read a couple books that made me realize how the issue has been politicized and used by the media to sell fear. I still think it is a big issue, but not the biggest, probably not top five.
Abortion- (college ~2007-2008) I was against abortions until I learned more about human development. When I learned how often women naturally abort/miscarriage and how long it takes for a fetus to be physically distinguishable from other mammals, I quickly altered my opinion. Over the last few years (~2022), I've had a growing sympathy for pro life arguments.
America- (2001) I was an extremely patriotic young man. In college, again (~2005-9), I grew more and more disgusted with America. I flopped again. I'm an American apologist now (~2024). I think American is one of the greatest countries in human history for multiple factors, even considering her many horrors. People vote with their feet.
Capitalism- (~2008-2018) in my idealist phase, I blamed capitalism for many of the problems in the world. Around 2016, I started informally studying economics. I completely flopped my opinion. Capitalism is awesome!
Exploitation of Factory Workers- (~2008-2018) I used to think corporations exploited workers. But factory jobs are way better than farming, That is why you don't see factory workers running back to the fields. People want to move to cities and provide more opportunities for their family. Back to the beauty of capitalism. If you do not have two consenting parties agreeing, it isn't capitalism. US companies go to other countries for cheaper labor (among other factors), but the workers go to those companies because the wages are worth it.
Racism in the US (~2016-2021)- I used to think America was super racist. After trying to prove how racist America is, I found the topic very difficult to prove. The evidence exists, but it isn't as strong as I thought. I'm not saying America isn't racist, but it's not 1968. Too many American act like it's still 1968.
Police Brutality- (2018-2021) Similar to racism. As I argued with other people and got more informed, I changed my mind. I believed a lot of the media about policing. Now I think police have an extremely difficult job. The bad apples, who are few, make a bad name. The police union helps protect bad cops because local governments do not have the funding to pay higher wages. I would personally make the use of force less strict, but I don't think the main narrative is correct.
US Constitution- I thought it was so outdated. Now I admire the achievement, and it's ability to evolve (slowly) and keep the US thriving. The separation of power and checks and balances have been great. Being hard to change is a feature not a bug.
Free Will- I used to love free will. I first encountered serious free will discussions in the early 2010s. Now, I like the idea and live my life as if it is true. See post here.
God- I grew up believing there was a God as a default position. I seriously didn't know it was optional. I never believed in any religion. I remember thinking the idea of only one of the religious being correct and all others being wrong was very unlikely. As I learned and experienced more, the idea of a God became less and less likely. Depending on how God is defined, I doubt there is a God, especially not a God anything like one from a religion.
Jesus- (~2013) I was a more militant atheist for a while. While arguing with a friend about mostly Jesus, I let my confirmation and selection bias get the best of me. For a short while, I believed the person Jesus was completely fictional. It's hard to maintain such a crazy idea, and I quickly realized that Jesus was a Jewish man crucified by the Romans with a group of followers who became the Christians.
Helping Others- I used to think you could help people change by caring and trying. If I gave them the right argument or information or showed them something, they would change a bad behavior. I still think people can help others, but I realize now it is really hard and most importantly the person has to want to change. Not just say they want to change, but want to change. People can help nudge others.
Following Your Passion- terrible idea alert! I believed my teachers and adults who said follow your passion. After trying to follow my passion and failing to find anything close to happiness, I reevaluated. Don't follow your passion! Analyze and evaluate many options and make an informed choice based on realistic probabilities and statistics. Follow likely and reasonable outcomes. If you want to shoot for the stars have a deadline and backup plan.
Having Kids- I used to think having kids was dumb because of environmental reasons. Then I figured less people would have better lives because there would be more resources available. After studying economics more, I see population differently. Higher populations have many benefits, economic growth and technological innovations for name two. As stated above, I think depopulation is a bigger concern. Ties to capitalism and economics.
Over/de population- In college during my environmentalism phase, I thought that humans were going to ruin the planet (we still might), I thought there were way too many people. If we had less people, everyone alive would benefit. Due to a few ideas and topics already mentioned above. I think depopulation is a biggest risk than overpopulation. People and growth improve human quality of lives. Unless robots can step up.
Rationality- I used to think people were extremely irrational. Now, I've realized more that people are very rational when you adjust for their backgrounds, education, environment, etc. I, or you, might think a person is being irrational, but we don't know how they feel or think.
Death Penalty- I've gone back and forth on this too.
CONCLUSION
I feel like I've changed my mind a decent amount. Still, I don't think I have changed much as a person.
For most of the ideas above, I've just become more moderate. My media has also become more moderate. So maybe, I've just adapted to my media consumption more than I've actually changed my mind.
I don't see any of these topics having influenced my values. Most of my ideas have swayed to what creates a world with less suffering. I was more of a utilitarian well before I knew what utilitarianism was.
