It is very strange the amount of theology that comes solely from Paul's idiosyncratic writings, given that he neither met the prophet in question (Jesus), nor was taught by any of his students (apostles), nor even got along particularly well with any of his students.
I'm not really a believer or practicer anymore, but as someone who spent substantial time reading scripture when I was, I've thought a lot about what happens to Christianity if you discard the writings of Paul. If the namesake of Christianity satisfies the claims of the believers, that should be sufficient. Unfortunately, I believe that without Paul's writings, as well as the body of knowledge contained in extra-scriptural writings (commentary through history, catechisms, doctrine passed down by your local church, etc) Christianity pretty much falls apart.
Christianity as an imperial-aligned religion doesn't happen sure, but I'm not sure it falls apart. Jesuism or "The Way," looks a lot more like the Anabaptist traditions, Quakers, Liberation Theology, Christian Anarchism, and secular "Jesus as moral exemplar" movements.
As to the degree that these are falling apart is debatable. They certainly don't have the strong central hierarchy and universalism that Catholic and Protestant sects have, but they seem to endure.
Paul's letters are the earliest evidence of Christianity we have. The gospels weren't written until much later. It wouldn't surprise me if Paul's theology influenced what was written in the gospels.
> I've thought a lot about what happens to Christianity if you discard the writings of Paul.
Without Paul, Christianity reverts to being a variety of Judaism whose leader from the hinterlands got it right about what really mattered in life, as had his predecessors [0]. But he fatally misjudged the big city's religious oligarchs — vassals to their ruthless Roman occupiers — when he relentlessly attacked them and their cozy little setup; at their behest, he was executed by the Roman overlords.
Some [1] of the leader's later followers — his posse, if you will — imagined they'd seen him. But the leader's wealthy and/or well-connected followers are strangely absent from the narrative. Perhaps they had more information about what had really happened [2].
The early postmortem appearance tales eventually mutated into a legend of a warrior-king, raised from the dead — who would return Real Soon Now, to usher in God's reign and establish Israel's rightful place in Creation [3].
Over decades, the tales percolated into Mediterranean Graeco-Roman culture — eventually mutating further still into a tale of a divine being [4] (perhaps hybridized with that culture's myths?).
> It is very strange the amount of theology that comes solely from Paul's idiosyncratic writings, given that he neither met the prophet in question (Jesus), nor was taught by any of his students (apostles), nor even got along particularly well with any of his students.
It's interesting that every point of this narrative conflicts with the canonical accounts (even excluding the Pauline corpus for this purpose), in which Paul did encounter Jesus, and did at least spend time with (we aren't explicitly told it was spent in study, but presumably it was not exclusively in silent meditation) with disciples of Jesus between the encounter and conversion experience and the start of his ministry, and he got along as well with the other apostles as the other apostles they did with each other.
I chose the words carefully for that reason. The prophet of the nascent religion was a human being who was born, lived and died as a human being. Paul did not encounter this man. In his story, he encounters a divine being, and receives a private revelation (gospel) and mission that is distinct from the revelation and mission that the prophet in question gave as a human to his chosen students (apostles).
Paul is, in this terminology, also a prophet. He explicitly says the revelation he tells is not of human origin, and so not passed down to him through e.g. the ministry of one of the students (apostles) of the prophet in question.
It strikes me as unusual to have so much of the theology coming from someone who simply claims private revelation but is not the prophet in question and when the prophet explicitly chose disciples and set a ministry for them.
Not sure why you refer to the person who visited Paul on the Damascus Road with the term “divine being“ when this divine being as you put it specifically identifies himself as Jesus Christ, whom Paul was persecuting. And there’s further dialogue where Jesus communicates additional information to Paul as to the things he must suffer for Christ’s sake. He should also point out that Paul went over Peter and many of the other disciples to accepting him and his recount of the Damascus Road experience, despite the fact that he persecuted the church and was sending people to jail just prior to this encounte. I would take Paul at his word as faithfully recounted by Luke more than I would take your words as once so far removed, and obviously skeptical of the scriptures themselves. The entire New Testament and Christ life focuses on faith, which is supported by actual historical miracles and healings not to mention in Christ resurrection itself. That’s the whole issue, faith and belief versus skepticism and unbelief. It’s the grand drama that’s the whole point of both Old Testament and New Testament, that sprouts in the garden of Eden, where the serpent casted out on God‘s veracity when describing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. of course there will be people like you that argue on the side of skepticism and unbelief and that’s been true throughout history so nothing new here
I called him a divine being to describe the kind of experience it was. There was a historical human form of Jesus that the chosen apostles interacted with. In Paul's testimony he encounters Jesus who is not take the form of a historical human anymore and therefore the type of religious experience this is, is one with the divine. I am not making a Christological argument on the full nature of Jesus.
I am Christian btw, but I support bringing historical and documentary rigor to theology. I also haven't actually doubted anything, at least not of Christ. I've just characterized Paul's gospel and mission as coming from a private and separate revelation, unlike the gospels and missions that the original apostles received.
The point that I made based on that is that it is strange that a lot of the theology of Christianity as it develops centuries later is derived more from the exceptional and privately delivered gospel of Paul, rather than from the gospels of the apostles of Jesus when he also held a historical human form.
I think there is also an obvious scholarly reason for this that doesn't even require belief, which is that Paul's writings are the closest documents we have to the time of historical Jesus. However, that also gives reason for us to be cautious in hanging major theological positions on specific sections in Paul that seem absent from or in tension with the synoptic gospels.
So I’m wondering, do you the epistles Paul wrote as less authoritative and scriptural then the gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? I just trying to understand the distinctions you are trying to communicate in your responses. Thank you for sharing and I don’t want to continue to make assumptions like I did in my first comment that miss the mark
He was also a Roman citizen, so he could pull some privileges for free rides like getting to Rome through exercising his right to appeal directly to the Emperor
His main privilege was that petty local rulers were more reluctant to persecute him than they would a non-citizen.
Seneca’s brother, most well known as the recipient of Seneca’s letters, was one such judge who dismissed the charges against him when he found out that he was a citizen.
Or that these people are not suitable to have been judges in the setup of the Turing Test... People also fall for email spam with blatant misspellings, that doesn't mean email spam passes a Turing test, it means the people falling for it are marks.
> movies that aspire to win academy awards, are meant to be played to the world wide lowest common denominator
That's not the kind of films that tend to win the major Oscar awards. Those tend to be either a bit artsy (e.g. Anora this year) or "serious" biopics/history movies (e.g. Oppenheimer last year).
The original Turing Test was one of the more interesting standards... An expert judge talks with two subjects in order to determine which is the human: one is a human who knows the point of the test, and one is machine trying to fool the judge into being no better than a coin flip at correctly choosing who was human. Allow for many judges and experience in each etc.
The brilliance of the test, which was strangely lost on Turing, is that the test is doubtful to be passed with any enduring consistency. Intelligence is actually more of a social description. Solving puzzles, playing tricky games, etc is only intelligent if we agree that the actor involved faces normal human constraints or more. We don't actually think machines fulfill that (they obviously do not, that's why we build them: to overcome our own constraints), and so this is why calculating logarithms or playing chess ultimately do not end up counting as actual intelligence when a machine does them.
The thing with alchemy was not that their hypotheses were wrong (they eventually created chemistry), but that their method of secret esoteric mysticism over open inquiry was wrong.
Newton is the great example of this: he led a dual life, where in one he did science openly to a community to scrutinize, in the other he did secret alchemy in search of the philosopher's stone. History has empirically shown us which of his lives actually led to the discovery and accumulation of knowledge, and which did not.
Newton was a smart guy and he devoted a lot of time to his occult research. I bet that a lot of that occult research inspired the physics. The fact that his occult research remains, occult from the public, well that is natural aint it?
You can be inspired by anything, that's fine. Gell-mann was amusing himself and getting inspiration from Buddhism for quantum physics. It's the process of the inquiry that generates the knowledge as a discipline, rather than the personal spark for discovery.
> Alphafold made a breakthrough in protein folding.
Sort of. Alphafold is a prediction tool, or, alternatively framed, a hypothesis generation tool. Then you run an experiment to compare.
It doesn't represent a scientific theory, not in the sense that humans use them. It does not have anywhere near something like the accuracy rate for hypotheses to qualify as akin to the typical scientific testing paradigm. It's an incredibly powerful and efficient tool in certain contexts and used correctly in the discovery phase, but not the understanding or confirmation phase.
It's also got the usual pitfalls with differentiable neural nets. E.g. you flip one amino acid and it doesn't really provide a proper measure of impact.
Ultimately, one major prediction breakthrough is not that crazy. If we compare that to e.g. Random Forest and similar models, the impact in science is infinitely more with them.
We already have a precise and accurate theory for protein folding. What we don’t have is the computational power to do true precise simulations at a scale and speed we’d like.
In many aspects a huge tangled barely documented code base written by inexperienced grad students of quantum shortcuts, err, perturbative methods isn’t that much more or less intelligible than an AI model learning those same methods.
What "precise and accurate theory for protein folding" exists?
Nobody has been able to demonstrate convincingly that any simulation or theory method can reliably predict the folding trajectory of anything but the simplest peptides.
> What "precise and accurate theory for protein folding" exists?
It’s called Quantum Mechanics.
> Nobody has been able to demonstrate convincingly that any simulation or theory method can reliably predict the folding trajectory of anything but the simplest peptides.
No we don’t have simplified models or specialized theories to reduce the computational complexity enough to efficiently solve the QM or even molecular dynamics systems needed to predict protein folding for more than the simplest peptides.
Granted, it’s common to mix up things and say that not having a computationally tractable models means we don’t have precise and accurate theory of PF. Something like [0] resulting in an accurate, precise, and fast theory of protein folding would be incredibly valuable. This however, may not be possible outside specific cases. Though I believe AlphaFold indicates otherwise as it appears life has evolved various building blocks which enable a simpler physics of PF tractable to evolutionary processes.
Quantum computing however could change that [1]. If practical QM is feasible that is, which it’s beginning to look more and more likely. Some say QC is already proven and just needs scaled up.
I don't think anybody is 100% certain that doing a full quantum simulation of a protein (in a box of water) would recapitulate the dynamics of protein folding. It seems like a totally reasonable claim, but one that could not really be evaluated.
If you have a paper that makes a strong argument around this claim, I'd love to see it. BTW- regarding folding funnels, I learned protein folding from Ken Dill as a grad student in biophysics at UCSF, and used to run MD simulations of nucleic acids and proteins. I don't think anybody in the field wants to waste the time worrying about running full quantum simulations of protein folding, it would be prohibitevly expensive even with far better QM simulators than we have now (IE, n squared or better).
Also the article you linked- they are trying to find the optimal structure (called fold by some in the field). That's not protein folding- it's ground state de novo structure prediction. Protein folding is the process by which an unfolded protein adopts the structured state, and most proteins don't actually adopt some single static structure but tend to interconvert between several different substructes that are all kinetically accessible.
> I don't think anybody is 100% certain that doing a full quantum simulation of a protein (in a box of water) would recapitulate the dynamics of protein folding.
True, until it's experimentally shown there's still some possibility QM wouldn't suffice. Though I've not read anything that'd give reason to believe QM couldn't capture the dynamic behavior of folding, unlike the uncertainty around dark matter or quantum supremacy or quantum gravity.
Though it might be practically impossible to setup a simulation using QM which could faithfully capture true protein folding. That seems more likely.
> It seems like a totally reasonable claim, but one that could not really be evaluated.
If quantum supremeacy holds, my hunch would be that it would be feasible to evaluate it one day.
The paper I linked was mostly to showcase that there seem to be approaches utilizing quantum computing to speed up solving QM simulations. We're still in the early days of quantum computing algorithms and it's unclear what's possible yet. Tackling a dynamic system like a unfolded protein folding is certainly a ways away though!
> Also the article you linked- they are trying to find the optimal structure (called fold by some in the field). That's not protein folding- it's ground state de novo structure prediction.
Thanks! I haven't worked on quantum chemistry for many years, and only tangentially on protein folding, so useful to know the terminology. The meta table states and that whole possibility of folding states / pathways / etc fascinates me as potentially being emergent property of protein folding physics and biology as we know it.
