BC/AD vs BCE/CE

[Koros]

I have had this debate with many of my academic friends, and I'm curious as to the DP point of view on this.

In recent years, there has been a larger push to change the "BC/AD" references to "BCE/CE." This has been done, at least in part, to lessen the preferetial position that Christianity has in society. But, does it work? I was looking for some common arguments in favor of the "BCE/CE" terminology, and found a very succinct About.com article which lays out some common points.

Is It Better to Use CE & BCE or AD & BC?

Why Use BCE & CE Instead of BC & AD?

1. AD is almost certainly inaccurate — if Jesus existed, he wasn't born in the year suggested.
2. BC & AD privilege the role of Christianity in a society where it is no longer the defining belief system.
3. BC & AD imply the validity or truth of Christian theology — specifically, that Jesus is Lord.
4. BC & AD force non-Christians to imply or acknowledge the supremacy of Christianity
AD is awkward to use with centuries as opposed to specific dates — "12th century CE" while "12th century AD" means "12th century in the year of our Lord," which makes little sense.
5. Opposition to BCE & CE tends to be on religious rather than academic grounds, thus demonstrating that using them involves submitting to a religious agenda.

Perhaps it isn't much, but every time you use BCE and CE instead of BC and AD, you are refusing to submit yourself and your writings to a Christian agenda that is all about asserting dominion over culture, politics, society, and even your very thought processes. Sometimes it is the little things, however, that keep resistance alive and active.

Domination is frequently founded on little things that people take for granted and/or don't feel are individually worth the trouble of fighting. Collectively, though, the amount to quite a lot and make domination far easier. When we learn to question the little things and resist taking them for granted, it's becomes easier to question the big things as well, thus making resistance to the entire superstructure easier.

I added the numbers to make addressing the author's points a little easier to follow. The numbers don't exist in the original.

1. The accuracy of the birth of Jesus (either as a historical figure or religious one) is irrelevant to the discussion. Since both the BC/AD changeover and the BCE/CE changover occur at the same point, accuracy of one versus the other becomes moot.

2. This point makes sense on the surface, however ultimately becoms moot with the above mentioned fact. If both dating methods utilize the same point in time to switch from the "before" version to the "after," that point of time becomse the point of highest regard. That point of time, no matter which version you use, is based upon the accepted date of the birth of Jesus.

3. This point is true, yes, but ignores a larger point. The standard dating system (BC/AD) was created by a monk and became utilized nearly worldwide. To only focus on the implied validity of Christianity in the BC/AD system ignores the historical contribution and significance of the terms.

4. This point is completely wrong. Simply saying "BC" or "AD" does not force anything. Much like Christmas is a holiday that celebrates more than just a religious event (in today's society), the BC/AD terminology has come to signify points in time without expressed religious significance. One can acknowledge the historical influence (good and bad) of a religion without accepting the belief system.

5. If the author thinks this, then I would argue that he has not had any true discussion on the matter and is making assumptions. The majority of the arguments I have heard against switching from BC/AD to BCE/CE originate from the academic, not the religious. Though, certainly, I am sure there are strong religious objections to the practice.

To me, the whole change is pointless if we are still using the same point in time as the switching point. If anything, BCE/CE muddy the waters.

"What do BCE and CE stand for?"

"Those stand for 'Before the Common Era' and 'Common Era.'"

"Okay, so when does the 'Common Era' start?"

"Oh, it starts with the culturally accepted date for the birth of Jesus."

"So, why not use the standard terminology of 'BC' and 'AD?'"

"Umm...."​

Thoughts?

 

[Ockham]

I have had this debate with many of my academic friends, and I'm curious as to the DP point of view on this.

In recent years, there has been a larger push to change the "BC/AD" references to "BCE/CE." This has been done, at least in part, to lessen the preferetial position that Christianity has in society. But, does it work? I was looking for some common arguments in favor of the "BCE/CE" terminology, and found a very succinct About.com article which lays out some common points.

....


Thoughts?

Sounds like PC nonsense to me.

 

[Koros]

Sounds like PC nonsense to me.

I agree. The whole move to switch simply sounds like an attempt to placate the feeligs of people who can't accept the role that Christianity has played in history. I'm not Christian, by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn't hurt me or offend me that Christianity has played such an historically significant role in cultural development.

 

[azgreg]

I'm so glad I went through college 100 years ago.

 

[Your Star]

BCE and CE is much more appropriate and accurate. People who don't accept this are just stubborn.

 

[tres borrachos]

I agree. The whole move to switch simply sounds like an attempt to placate the feeligs of people who can't accept the role that Christianity has played in history. I'm not Christian, by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn't hurt me or offend me that Christianity has played such an historically significant role in cultural development.

This-------------^. I am also not Christian but I understand the major role that Christianity and religion in general has played, and continues to play, in the world.

 

[Ockham]

BCE and CE is much more appropriate and accurate. People who don't accept this are just stubborn.

What's more appropriate about it exactly?

 

[Your Star]

What's more appropriate about it exactly?

It doesn't tie our understanding of our history to a religious event from a religion that most people don't follow.

 

[sangha]

This thread demonstrates how incredibly PC the right is.

 

[Ockham]

It doesn't tie our understanding of our history to a religious event from a religion that most people don't follow.

Fact is history is very tied to Christian events, so what's the purpose of denying that fact?
Whether people follow religion or not is irrelevant.

 

[Your Star]

Fact is history is very tied to Christian events, so what's the purpose of denying that fact?
Whether people follow religion or not is irrelevant.

Some history, not all history. History in China isn't very tied to Christian events; early history in North America isn't very tied to Christian events. We used BC and BCE in school and it works fine and has no chance of offending anyone. What's the problem?

 

[Gaius46]

Shall we also do away with the Gregorian calendar as well since it is essentially a Christian calendar? Seems silly to me. Though it seems equally silly to keep BC/AD simply to honor some long dead monk that the vast majority of people don't know or care about.

 

[Ockham]

Some history, not all history. History in China isn't very tied to Christian events;

Much of history and of course China's history is tied to Christian events. Missionary's from as early as 9th century were put into China. Spain and Portugal relied heavily on the Church and traded back to the early 1700's with the East India Company. Granted it's not a majority of China's history as China's history goes way back, but it's there and it have ties to Christian events.

early history in North America isn't very tied to Christian events. We used BC and BCE in school and it works fine and has no chance of offending anyone. What's the problem?

Huh... so the Pilgrims separatist who left England in 1603 due to the Church of England and it's persecution of separatists which led them to America in 1620 had NOTHING to do with Christian events. Are you serious? It's why North America was first settled... :doh

 

[Your Star]

Much of history and of course China's history is tied to Christian events. Missionary's from as early as 9th century were put into China. Spain and Portugal relied heavily on the Church and traded back to the early 1700's with the East India Company. Granted it's not a majority of China's history as China's history goes way back, but it's there and it have ties to Christian events.

Doesn't make it appropriate to use BC and AD.

Huh... so the Pilgrims separatist who left England in 1603 due to the Church of England and it's persecution of separatists which led them to America in 1620 had NOTHING to do with Christian events. Are you serious? It's why North America was first settled... :doh

North America existed before Europeans left to colonize it.

 

[Ockham]

Shall we also do away with the Gregorian calendar as well since it is essentially a Christian calendar? Seems silly to me. Though it seems equally silly to keep BC/AD simply to honor some long dead monk that the vast majority of people don't know or care about.

That's the problem I have with PC.... It validates social derision. Political correctness attempts to push a "respect others views" while restricting and oppressing others. We must feel good about giving atheists or non-believers a new term to validate their point of view while rejecting others point of view. It also attempts to restrict freedom of speech by punishing those who do not or refuse political correct words, as inevitably those who do not go along with PC bull**** get labeled and berated.

 

[Koros]

BCE and CE is much more appropriate and accurate. People who don't accept this are just stubborn.

You say that as though it's a fact. It isn't. In what way is BCE/CE "much more appropriate?" Did you not read my OP? If we are still using the same date as the switching point between "then" (BC/BCE) and "now" (AD/CE), then all we have done is added an unnecessary extra step in defining the switching point. This isn't stubbornness, it's simple logic.

 

[Ockham]

Doesn't make it appropriate to use BC and AD.

It explains how you're wrong about ties to Christianity and rebutts your attempt to deny the ties ever existed. In that, you were wrong.

North America existed before Europeans left to colonize it.

While an excellent strawman, no one is claiming North American did NOT exist before Europeans colonized it, the quote you used from me shows that North America was colonized BECAUSE of Christian issue with the Church of England, therefore the colonization and what later becomes the United States had ties directly to Christianity and has ever since.


You still have not provided any information as to why BCE/CE is more appropriate than BC/AD, as your previous points have been show to be incorrect.

 

[Your Star]

You say that as though it's a fact. It isn't. In what way is BCE/CE "much more appropriate?" Did you not read my OP? If we are still using the same date as the switching point between "then" (BC/BCE) and "now" (AD/CE), then all we have done is added an unnecessary extra step in defining the switching point. This isn't stubbornness, it's simple logic.

It's more appropriate because it doesn't tie world history to the events of a religion that the majority of the population doesn't believe in. It is more accurate because at any moment Christianity could decide that Christ didn't actually die at this time, but at this new time. So what do we do then? Change the dates for our secular history? The arbitrariness of religion is not a suitable for our understanding of history.

Also, we have already switched over, academia have been using BCE and CE for quite some time as well as most public school systems.

 

[Jredbaron96]

BCE/CE is better. BC/AD is old and inaccurate.

 

[Koros]

It's more appropriate because it doesn't tie world history to the events of a religion that the majority of the population doesn't believe in. It is more accurate because at any moment Christianity could decide that Christ didn't actually die at this time, but at this new time. So what do we do then? Change the dates for our secular history? The arbitrariness of religion is not a suitable for our understanding of history.

I find it funny that you are completely glossing over the point that BCE/CE is just as abritrary and ties the switch over to the exact same event - the culturall accepted date for the birth of Christ. If the switch over was tied to a different date, then you may have a point. But, as it is, you don't.

And how likely do you think it will be that Christianity will decide to change the date for the birth of Christ? Seriously, that is probably the absolute weakest argument I have ever heard.

Also, we have already switched over, academia have been using BCE and CE for quite some time as well as most public school systems.

Not entirely, we haven't. Many in academia still use BC and AD. Don't make generalizations.

 

[Koros]

BCE/CE is better. BC/AD is old and inaccurate.

Read the OP. That's addressed.

 

[Ockham]

BCE/CE is better. BC/AD is old and inaccurate.

So OLD = BAD, NEW = GOOD is the logic here.

 

[Ockham]

Read the OP. That's addressed.

This is yet another attempt to detach society from Christianity at any cost.

 

[Gardener]

When people go to such degrees in their attempt to stamp out any vestige of Christianity, all they accomplish is to validate the claims of Christians that they are under attack.

Instead of this constant battle between the extreme Christians trying to force their views into every nook and cranny of our lives and the miltant atheists trying to stamp out even a hint of religion, why don't these people ever step back, chill out for a bit and realize how similar they are to one another?


I'm reminded of the militant feminists I used to know in the 70s who would start foaming at the mouth if a person used the word "history" instead of "herstory". Some of these attempts to try to forceably retool languge can be so clumsy as to be laughable.

 

[Ockham]

When people go to such degrees in their attempt to stamp out any vestige of Christianity, all they accomplish is to validate the claims of Christians that they are under attack.

Instead of this constant battle between the extreme Christians trying to force their views into every nook and cranny of our lives and the miltant atheists trying to stamp out even a hint of religion, why don't these people ever step back, chill out for a bit and realize how similar they are to one another?


I'm reminded of the militant feminists I used to know in the 70s who would start foaming at the mouth if a person used the word "history" instead of "herstory". Some of these attempts to try to forceably retool languge can be so clumsy as to be laughable.

Rome tried stamping out Christianity a long long time ago. It didn't work out too well. :lol: