Are McDowell Apologetics Valid or Lame?

[McCulloch]

I have listened to McDowell speak. He is among those Christian thinkers of the ages.

Then why does he need to resort to logical fallacies, dishonest arguments and selective use of evidence?

Two active members of this forum have expressed divergent views about the popular Christian apologist Josh McDowell. Is either one correct? Is Josh McDowell a great apologist for this age? Or is he a charlatan, pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible?

I was a skeptic too until I took a good hard look at the claims of Jesus Christ. In college I met several students who challenged me to take a closer look, to study and examine the Christian faith.

I took the challenge, feeling certain I could prove Christianity to be false, a religion built on nice stories that couldn't stand up to the test of truth.

But as I dug deeper and deeper into the claims of Christianity, I was shocked. I found facts, not fiction. I found so much evidence that I could only come to one conclusion Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was crucified, He died, and He was resurrected on the third day.

JOSH.ORG: Apologetics

In short, I don't think this book [New Evidence That Demands a Verdict] accomplishes what it claims to do. And I can think of better books, written from an Evangelical perspective, which do accomplish those same aims. Even if I were an Evangelical, I'm afraid I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.

'Evidence' That Demands a Refund (2001)
Lets see some evidence that demands a verdict on the validity of McDowell.

[harvey1]

For example, on page 86 McDowell quotes the Talmud as saying, "The Amoa 'Ulla' ('Ulla' was a disciple of R. Youchanan and lived in Palestine at the end of the third century.) adds: 'And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth) there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: 'Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him,' It is otherwise with Yeshu, for he was near to the civil authority." Besides the fact that this passage is so vague that hundreds of people could be under consideration, allegations are included that should exclude Jesus, according to apologetic propaganda and the Gospels. For McDowell to cite as a source a passage which refers to Jesus as a beguiler is rather interesting, to say the least. I'm surprised he would admit it...

Not that I would defend McDowell as a decent scholar, however I think it is not unscholarly to cite sources who have an unfavorable view of the historical person who's existence is in question. That doesn't mean that one agrees that the person was a miscreant, it only means that there's evidence to suggest that people thought of that "miscreant" as being historical. (Btw, I'm also not saying that this historical citation is sufficient evidence of Jesus of Nazareth. It could be a different person who is being referred to, or the opponents of Christianity in the late third century may have been careless by assuming Jesus had existed in the early first century.)

[Lotan]

Not that I would defend McDowell as a decent scholar, however I think it is not unscholarly to cite sources who have an unfavorable view of the historical person who's existence is in question.

I have no argument with that. A polemic source is still a source after all. That is the least of the problems with McDowell's treatment of this subject.

[scorpia]

McDowell is a joke. Like many other apologists out there, he preaches to the ignorant choir and uses a lot of liberties in doing so. He has no problem distorting the facts, misrepresenting authorities and even outright lying if it makes the point that he's trying to make, and the people he's preaching to don't know any better so they swallow it hook, line and sinker.

I could say the same for some certain non-believers I have met. If someone is dishonest, does that mean everything they say must be incorrect?

The False Dilemma fallacy occurs when an argument offers a false range of choices and requires that you pick one of them. The range is false because there may be other, unstated choices which would only serve to undermine the original argument. If you concede to pick one of those choices, you accept the premise that those choices are indeed the only ones possible. Usually, only two choices are presented, thus the term "False Dilemma"; however, sometimes there are three (trilemma) or more choices offered. "

Wouldn't this also apply to the topic's question?

Is Josh McDowell a great apologist for this age? Or is he a charlatan, pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible?

What if he's neither?

What if this some sort of mix of truth and lies, kind of like the internet? Or something else?

[Lotan]

If someone is dishonest, does that mean everything they say must be incorrect?

Not necessarily. How much BS are you willing to accept? 25% ? 50% ?

Wouldn't this also apply to the topic's question?

I've provided information that shows that at least some of McDowell's apologetic arguments are lame. No one has yet shown evidence that any of them are valid, unless you count 1John's appeal to authority and his personal opinion. If there is a third option please don't keep it from us.

What if he's neither?
What if this some sort of mix of truth and lies, kind of like the internet? Or something else?

What if?

Maybe this will help...

Talking about "double standards" Steven Dutch writes...

"Except, if you believe Josh McDowell's Evidence that Demands a Verdict, such a thing is impossible. McDowell expounds at length on how Jewish scribes were not supposed to copy even a single letter from memory, how even a single error mandated the destruction of a scroll, and how the scribes copied even traditional diacritical marks that had lost all their linguistic meaning. So how did entire words drop out? McDowell takes on the Goliath issue in Answers to Tough Questions and dismisses the discrepancy as "a copyist's error." So in one book he stresses that it was all but impossible to make an error in transmitting the Bible, and in another book "oops, I guess there were mistakes after all."

Sounds like "some sort of mix of truth and lies" to me.

[scorpia]

Not necessarily. How much BS are you willing to accept? 25% ? 50% ?

Whatever amount of bull there is, 50%, 75%, shouldn't I also look into the remaining 25% that isn't?

Maybe some of his arguments are lame. Doesn't mean he won't provide an argument that isn't lame. I have yet to hear ALL of his arguments though but look into it wanting to hear a variety of opinion.

[Cephus]

I could say the same for some certain non-believers I have met. If someone is dishonest, does that mean everything they say must be incorrect?

No, but it means that they lose credibility as a reliable source. Unfortunately, people like McDowell are famous for presenting only the evidence that supports their argument and completely ignoring the evidence that blows it out of the water. Even after they are proven wrong, even after they are forced to admit that they are wrong, they turn around next week and make the same argument again. They're not interested in the truth, they're only interested in pushing their biased and false agenda.

[Lotan]

Whatever amount of bull there is, 50%, 75%, shouldn't I also look into the remaining 25% that isn't?

Maybe, but how many people really research these things? That's the purpose of a 'non-fiction' popularization; an expert does the research and reports their findings to the lay audience. This involves a certain amount of trust, which McDowell abuses.

Maybe some of his arguments are lame. Doesn't mean he won't provide an argument that isn't lame.

Let us know if you come up with one.

[micatala]

"If" you believe that Jesus really existed and "if" you believe that other religions are false and don't count, then the "trilemma" holds up. Unless you don't want to consider it. Lewis had already discounted other religions as false and was directing a specific logic to Christ Jesus.

The first assumption I think is fine.

The second assumption is much more problematic. It is certainly possible that Christianity is partly or largely true and other religions are also partly true. Any religion that believes in one God is, for example, in agreement with Christianity at least on this point.


Besides, I don't see how the Lord, liar, or lunatic trilemma holds up even under these additional assumptions. Please explain how these assumptions dehorn the trilemma.

[Lotan]

LIVE JOSH!


If you have strong stomach and a fast modem you can download over 7 hours of a 1998(?) lecture series titled "Evidence for Your Faith" from this site...

http://www.mininova.org/tor/125830

(Warning: this is a BIG file, 106.81 mb)

There are 7 lectures, each an hour or more long. The topics/titles covered are:

1. Introduction to "Truth"
2. "The Historicity of the NT"
3. "The Testimony of Archaeology"
4. Revelation (Basics?)
5. "The Deity of Christ" (continued)
6. Resurrection
7. Apologetics – Apostles, Paul, Prophecy

I've only had the chance to enjoy the first two lectures so far, but my initial impression is a hearty "SO WHAT?" There's nothing new here folks.

[Cephus]

Besides, I don't see how the Lord, liar, or lunatic trilemma holds up even under these additional assumptions. Please explain how these assumptions dehorn the trilemma.

They don't. They don't do anything to get rid of the possibilities that Jesus was simply mistaken, or that Jesus never said any of the things attributed to him, etc. The Trilemma really is so full of holes, it could do a passable impression of swiss cheese.