Do Christians apply logic consistently?

[Cmass]

Do Christians engage in the same depth of reasoning, apply the same thinking skills and invite the same level of skepticism when reading claims made by the Bible as they do when reading any other claims that they encounter?

I don't think so.

As I read through page after page of this forum, I watch otherwise highly articulate, logical people (albeit with "faith problems") create more and more elaborate - often bizarre - stories to hold together utterly nonsensical claims. There is no consistency in what they chose to believe and not believe.

One bible story is just a metaphor while another is literal - it all depends upon the debate and who is debating.

It comes across as a silly, fragmented belief system in desperate search for some way to justify it's existence and find evidence that it is real.

If you were to replace "Christianity" or "Jesus" or "God" with any other subject, would you treat it with the same level of "faith"? The claims made by the bible are absolutely astounding to say the least. If I was to make such claims, you would be very skeptical. No?

[MrWhy]

This is a major point that theists often overlook or ignore. The quality and quantity of evidence required for credibility depends on how improbable the claim and it's impact on our lives. Ancient historical accounts are only important to history buffs. They have little effect on the daily life of most people. You could say their effect is trivial. Accounts of religious miracles affect the daily lives of millions, and have influenced global events for centuries. The effect is significant and therefore needs more substantiation.

1. Scripture stories of miracles have global and long term impact, and they are not naturally occurring events.
2. Various ancient historical events such as who ruled what and where have much less impact on our lives today, and they are not supernatural claims.

Which one needs the most evidence? Number 1 or number 2?

The fact that theists do not see, or ignore this obvious difference, is testimony to how much religious belief affects the reasoning process.

MrWhy wonders why theists don't wonder why.

MrWhy,

I believe that you are sincere in your response, but I think you fail to realize that this approach is merely a smoke screen. You are not the first to present it and it has been presented in similar terms by many before you. I say this only so you will understand that I am addressing the argument and that this is not a personal attack upon you.

Yep, I am sincere with the response, but I did not realize it was a smoke screen. Can you explain what it was a smoke screen for? Also don't see how the frequency of use alters the validity of an argument.

The problem with the argument is that there is no objective way of quantifying and qualifying what "more evidence" would look like. Usually, what people mean by "more evidence," is more than is available; and when more evidence is found, then the ante goes up to more than that.

Think I can quantify how much more evidence is needed. In all the improbably, incredible, supernatural claims I'm aware of, the resurrection of a dead body is at the top of the list for necessary evidence. If you're asking for some metric to measure evidence, I'm not aware that any exist. You would need some way to objectively assign each point of evidence a value/weight, and then objectively assign a score that is related to probability of truth. Extend the weights and scores, sum'em up, and see if the results is over the "adequate evidence" threshold. Might be an interesting project to develop such a method. Maybe it could be used in legal court, but seems unnecessary in this case. Refuting an argument based on the inadequate quantification of "more" is what I would call a smoke screen. Especially when "more" is not even essential to make the point.

Let me prove my point with this friendly challenge: Tell us what would be considered sufficient evidence to affirm any ancient event and then tell us what objective methodology would one use to determine exactly what "more evidence" would be, both quantitatively and qualitatively?

This is looking at the question incorrectly. I simply asked which one of the two situations would require the most evidence. As for adequate evidence of a resurrection, ancient or current, I would need a medical staff to confirm the death, monitor the corpse, and then verify it lives again. A staff not involved in the religion or organization that's making the resurrection claim. It would be difficult (impossible) to obtain this level of verification for an ancient resurrection claim, so why would anyone believe it? Not only is it a highly improbably event, there's no way to adequately validate it.

There is also another problem with requesting "more evidence." The question is, why is more evidence needed, if you are not admitting that sufficient evidence exists?

As you implied and I stated, I don't think sufficient exist.

[Zorro1]

If you were to actually read the quote, you will find the phrases “The Atheist may ask for…” and “if the Atheist demands 100% certainty…” These clearly point out that the category is particular and not universal.

Particular to "the Atheist", whoever that may be.

This is exactly what I mean; it is hard to discuss logic with you when you don’t understand how the terms are used in the discipline. “Particular” and “universal” refer to the categorical propositions being discussed. The two examples I gave show conclusively that the word, “atheist,” is to be taken particularly, not universally. In other words, I am not talking about “all atheists,” which would be a universal proposition, but I am talking about “some atheists,” which is a particular proposition.

So, until you take a class in logic I not sure if I can continue this discussion with you. I am not going to sit and write a paragraph or two of explanation for every sentence I write, because you just don’t understand how the terms are used in logic.

It is you who is making the equation, '100% certainty'='irrefutable evidence', not me.

Here we go again!

If something is irrefutable, it is 100% certain. That is what “irrefutable” means. It means there is no refutation possible, it is 100% certain. The fact that you don’t make the equation between those two terms shows you’re just not equipped to participate in a sophisticated logical discussion.

Again, I am not going to spend the time defining every critical word for you. Get a thesaurus. You will find that “certain” is a synonym for “irrefutable.”

I could go on, but the rest of your post is just as irrational as the above. Once you have taken a class in logic and get some basic reference works, like a dictionary and thesaurus, come back and we can try again. Until then, we are done.

Z

[Lotan]

This is exactly what I mean; it is hard to discuss logic with you when you don’t understand how the terms are used in the discipline. “Particular” and “universal” refer to the categorical propositions being discussed.

Maybe if you come down off your epistemilogical high horse for a moment you will see that I understand the terms well enough, and that you have used them incorrectly.

The two examples I gave show conclusively that the word, “atheist,” is to be taken particularly, not universally.

The two examples that were taken out of context you mean? Your use of "the Atheist" is only particular in that it refers to a particular type, not a particular individual. Ask G. Brady Lenardos.

In other words, I am not talking about “all atheists,” which would be a universal proposition, but I am talking about “some atheists,” which is a particular proposition.

If you (or G. Brady Lenardos) have failed to express yourself clearly then you have no one to blame but yourself (or G. Brady Lenardos). Let's look at criterion #1 again...

1) The criterion must be able to be met, at least in principle. Sometimes people will make demands for evidence that cannot be met. The Atheist may ask for evidence that will prove with 100% certainty that Jesus rose from the dead. If you are unable to provide such evidence, the Atheist will then consider his unbelief justified. What the Atheist doesn't realize, is that he has committed a categorical fallacy!

So you introduce the general (universal) term "people" followed by another one "The Atheist". It reads like a Discovery channel nature documentary...

" The Atheist is a busy fellow, always on the lookout for predators..."

At no time do you inform the reader that you are referring to any specific atheist. Do you suppose that your readers are also mind readers? Let's continue...

There are two types of reasoning that we use...blah, blah, blah... All of these areas can only yield probable conclusions. As you can see, if the Atheist demands 100% certainty, he is asking for a deductive argument. But historical investigation is an inductive process. Here the Atheist is demanding a deductive conclusion to an inductive argument. He is asking... blah, blah, blah...

So tell us, when you say "As you can see" are we to deduce from the context that "you" is also to be taken particularly?
What is even more illogical is that you would make a particular claim like that after pointing out the fallacy of making hasty generalizations...

You can't make a over generalized statement like that and then apply the position of some to all.
...and...
I think you will agree that we should not impose the position of the some on to all, in this question either. Do you want to be held to account for some of the stupid things a few atheists say?

Maybe I could be forgiven for assuming that you would practice what you preach. I'll try to avoid that mistake in the future.

So, until you take a class in logic I not sure if I can continue this discussion with you.

I understand pretzel logic well enough. I'm pretty good at spotting lame excuses too.

I am not going to sit and write a paragraph or two of explanation for every sentence I write, because you just don’t understand how the terms are used in logic.

I know what 'begging the question' is. Does that help?

If something is irrefutable, it is 100% certain.

I disagree. Go ahead and refute me.

That is what “irrefutable” means.

No it isn't. It means...

"Impossible to refute or disprove"
"Beyond question"
"Not able to be proved wrong."
"Impossible to deny or disprove"

So when I say that I've spoken to the King of the Gnomes that is "irrefutable evidence" that I have done so. You simply can't disprove an unfalsifiable claim. (a tautology I know, let me know if I'm going too fast for you.) Will you also agree that my claim is "100% certain"?

It means there is no refutation possible...

Correct.

...it is 100% certain.

Oops, non sequitur!

The fact that you don’t make the equation between those two terms shows you’re just not equipped to participate in a sophisticated logical discussion.

Begging the question and a circular argument all in one sentence. Bravo!

Again, I am not going to spend the time defining every critical word for you. Get a thesaurus. You will find that “certain” is a synonym for “irrefutable.”

I like "Capable of being relied on". I doubt that you would find any atheists on this MB who would agree that '100% certainty' is a possibility, so I don't see why you need to force that on anyone. It is you who introduced that red herring, no one else.

I could go on, but the rest of your post is just as irrational as the above.

I wouldn't want to waste your time...

Once you have taken a class in logic and get some basic reference works, like a dictionary and thesaurus, come back and we can try again.

Gee, thanks mister.

Until then, we are done.

Well OK, but at least answer one last request. Leaving aside the fact that, for a guy who thinks he's Mr. Spock, you've committed a few illogical doozies over the course of this thread, what I would like to know, and what others have expressed an interest in as well, is how the remarkable "objective historical methodology" that you have developed leads to "the only rational conclusion" which "is that Jesus rose form the dead." I might not fully understand it, but I'm sure some of the brighter atheists could explain it to me. Or will you evade the question yet again?

[Goose]

Let's put you in the position of having to convince me that I descended from apes. This is an incedible thing to believe. Apes. Really? Now the burden is on you to show me extra special evidence for this feat to have taken place. You have evidence - i.e. fossil records which are spotty and have time date discepensies of hundreds of thousnds of years. Not 50-70. And you have a theory - i.e the mechanism of evolution. You have bacteria that may or may not mutate. But you cannot convince me that an ape was my great great grandady beyond a shadow of a doubt. Show me the evidence that is so compelling I have no altertinative but to believe. After all this event is not rational is it, to think I came from an ape? I've never seen this before. There are no current living examples are there? So your proof had better be good. When you're finished with that. Please convince me I came from primordial soup. My rational thinking tells me no this isn't possible. Can you prove it absolutely? That is an incredible thing for me to believe.

Why is it that creationists keep missing what evolution teaches? Humans are not descended from apes.

Animals are multicellular living organisms that are not plants. Humans are animals.
Placental mammals are animals with backbones and warm blood who bear their young. Humans are placental mammals.
The primates are an order of mammals characterized by good eyesight and flexible hands and feet. Humans are primates.
Apes are primates with short or no tails. Humans are apes. Specifically, hairless beach apes.

All of this is true, regardless of whether you believe or disbelieve evolution.

Evolution teaches that animals which are close genetically are descended from a common ancestor.

OK, my mistake. I should have said the theory of evolution presumes we are desendats from ape-like creatures. But you can see where the confusion for creationists arises from statements like Gould's:

And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Here's my point. There is enough gaps in the theory of evolution (the one that says we descended from ape-like creatures) for anyone apllying logic to conclude that it is not an infalible idea. Is it probable? Perhaps, that is debatable. Take this commentary from talkorigins:

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either.On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Because the Resurrection took place 2000 years ago we cannot observe it. We can only evaluate the evidence we have. Because Evolution of humans has happened over millions of years we cannot observe it we can only evaluate the evidence we have. Because I do not see dead people rising does not mean that dead people cannot rise. Because I do not see humans evolving does not mean they cannot evolve. The Resurrection cannot be disproven entirely. The Theory that humans have evolved from ape-like creatures cannot be disproven entirely.

So, the topic of the OP was do Christians aplly logic consistantly, not was the resurrection real. Resurrection of Christ is a different context in many ways to the theory of E, but similar in others. As a Christian I try to aplly logic to what I believe to the extent that my presuppositions will allow. But is the atheist or Evolutionist really all that different?

[MrWhy]

So, the topic of the OP was do Christians aplly logic consistantly, not was the resurrection real. Resurrection of Christ is a different context in many ways to the theory of E, but similar in others. As a Christian I try to aplly logic to what I believe to the extent that my presuppositions will allow. But is the atheist or Evolutionist really all that different?

We all use the same basic facilities. It's just that some ideas are easier to defend than others.

[Goat]

Let's put you in the position of having to convince me that I descended from apes. This is an incedible thing to believe. Apes. Really? Now the burden is on you to show me extra special evidence for this feat to have taken place. You have evidence - i.e. fossil records which are spotty and have time date discepensies of hundreds of thousnds of years. Not 50-70. And you have a theory - i.e the mechanism of evolution. You have bacteria that may or may not mutate. But you cannot convince me that an ape was my great great grandady beyond a shadow of a doubt. Show me the evidence that is so compelling I have no altertinative but to believe. After all this event is not rational is it, to think I came from an ape? I've never seen this before. There are no current living examples are there? So your proof had better be good. When you're finished with that. Please convince me I came from primordial soup. My rational thinking tells me no this isn't possible. Can you prove it absolutely? That is an incredible thing for me to believe.

Why is it that creationists keep missing what evolution teaches? Humans are not descended from apes.

Animals are multicellular living organisms that are not plants. Humans are animals.
Placental mammals are animals with backbones and warm blood who bear their young. Humans are placental mammals.
The primates are an order of mammals characterized by good eyesight and flexible hands and feet. Humans are primates.
Apes are primates with short or no tails. Humans are apes. Specifically, hairless beach apes.

All of this is true, regardless of whether you believe or disbelieve evolution.

Evolution teaches that animals which are close genetically are descended from a common ancestor.

OK, my mistake. I should have said the theory of evolution presumes we are desendats from ape-like creatures. But you can see where the confusion for creationists arises from statements like Gould's:

And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Here's my point. There is enough gaps in the theory of evolution (the one that says we descended from ape-like creatures) for anyone apllying logic to conclude that it is not an infalible idea. Is it probable? Perhaps, that is debatable. Take this commentary from talkorigins:

Lack of proof isn't a weakness, either.On the contrary, claiming infallibility for one's conclusions is a sign of hubris. Nothing in the real world has ever been rigorously proved, or ever will be. Proof, in the mathematical sense, is possible only if you have the luxury of defining the universe you're operating in. In the real world, we must deal with levels of certainty based on observed evidence. The more and better evidence we have for something, the more certainty we assign to it; when there is enough evidence, we label the something a fact, even though it still isn't 100% certain.

Because the Resurrection took place 2000 years ago we cannot observe it. We can only evaluate the evidence we have. Because Evolution of humans has happened over millions of years we cannot observe it we can only evaluate the evidence we have. Because I do not see dead people rising does not mean that dead people cannot rise. Because I do not see humans evolving does not mean they cannot evolve. The Resurrection cannot be disproven entirely. The Theory that humans have evolved from ape-like creatures cannot be disproven entirely.

So, the topic of the OP was do Christians aplly logic consistantly, not was the resurrection real. Resurrection of Christ is a different context in many ways to the theory of E, but similar in others. As a Christian I try to aplly logic to what I believe to the extent that my presuppositions will allow. But is the atheist or Evolutionist really all that different?

You are understating the evidence against evolution, and also seem to be
misunderstanding the difference between evolution (the observation that
species change over time), and the "Theory of Evolution", which are models that are proposed to try to understand the mechanism on how evolution works. There is a difference there.

There is a difference when we have a whole set of fossils to draw the conclusion about, from purely naturalistic means, and the proposal that
an unseen supernatural being brought someone back from the dead , and then took him up to heaven.

WHen it comes to evolution, we have the physical evidence. We have expermental data. We have something that can be examined, probed,
and pondered.

With the resurrection of Jesus, we have a some books written 40 or even more years after the event, which contradict each other, describing an event that is outside of our experiances. In our experaince, a dead person stays dead.

[Goose]

So, the topic of the OP was do Christians aplly logic consistantly, not was the resurrection real. Resurrection of Christ is a different context in many ways to the theory of E, but similar in others. As a Christian I try to aplly logic to what I believe to the extent that my presuppositions will allow. But is the atheist or Evolutionist really all that different?

We all use the same basic facilities. It's just that some ideas are easier to defend than others.

Agreed. Evolution is pretty hard to defend

[Goat]

So, the topic of the OP was do Christians aplly logic consistantly, not was the resurrection real. Resurrection of Christ is a different context in many ways to the theory of E, but similar in others. As a Christian I try to aplly logic to what I believe to the extent that my presuppositions will allow. But is the atheist or Evolutionist really all that different?

We all use the same basic facilities. It's just that some ideas are easier to defend than others.

Agreed. Evolution is pretty hard to defend

Actually, it is quite easy to defend, if someone actually will listen. However, I noticed that there are some people whose baias is based on religious principles that read into their own religious books what they want, and have a bias ignoring evidence that does not meet their preconceptions.

[McCulloch]

I should have said the theory of evolution presumes we are desendats from ape-like creatures. But you can see where the confusion for creationists arises from statements like Gould's:

And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Yes, it is difficult for us to unshackle our minds from the thought that we (humans) are a special category of life. While Gould's statement is correct, it might have been clearer as, And humans and the other apes evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Because the Resurrection took place 2000 years ago we cannot observe it. We can only evaluate the evidence we have. Because evolution of humans has happened over millions of years we cannot observe it we can only evaluate the evidence we have. Because I do not see dead people rising does not mean that dead people cannot rise. Because I do not see humans evolving does not mean they cannot evolve. The Resurrection cannot be disproven entirely. The theory that humans have evolved from ape-like creatures cannot be disproven entirely.

Very little outside of mathematics can be disproven entirely. So we evaluate the evidence that we have. Biologists and other scientists have carefully evaluated the evidence of evolution. I am not academically qualified to fully evaluate this evidence. The concurrence of their systematic evaluation is unanimous that some form of evolutionary process explains the diversity of life on earth. Historians evaluate the evidence of the resurrection of Jesus. There is no concurrence of opinion of historians as to this claim.

So, the topic of the OP was do Christians apply logic consistently, not was the resurrection real. Resurrection of Christ is a different context in many ways to the theory of E, but similar in others. As a Christian I try to apply logic to what I believe to the extent that my presuppositions will allow. But is the atheist or Evolutionist really all that different?

Yes. After weighing the evidence, we tend to go with what is most likely. You, seem to believe in that which only cannot be absolutely disproven.

[MrWhy]

Agreed. Evolution is pretty hard to defend

Ideas that do not involve the supernatural are almost always easier to defend than the ones that incorporate supernatural ideas. This puts theists at a disadvantage. They have to sell a concept that is not of our natural world, and they only have ancient books like the Bible and Koran to work with. Actually, considering this last sentence, theists have to use some very adroit, if not consistent, logic.

I've always thought that scientist who were also theists have a difficult road. As scientist they need to pursue verifiable facts, as theists they have to accept supernatural claims. This would appear to require inconsistent applications of reasoning. This cwould be the cause (or the effect) for the scientific community having a smaller percentage of theists than the non scientific population. This stat would be a piece of support to the idea that theists do not apply logic as consistently as the unreligious. Before someone yells about this stat, you can look it up. I have, but don't have the links handy.