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?

[Lotan]

Coherence deals with a purported event or teaching fitting well with what is already known concerning other surrounding occurrences and teachings, it may be said to have a basis in history. Perhaps the proposed event or saying even does more, by illuminating other known incidents, rendering them more intelligible.

And perhaps the purported event or teaching is deliberately distorted, giving the illusion of harmony with other purported events ot teachings.

For instance, John Meier says coherence is one of the best indicators of Jesus’ teachings. An example he uses is that Jesus’ teaching in Mark 12:18-27 concerning the resurrection of the dead coheres well with a “Q” saying of Jesus on the same subject of the afterlife (reported in Matthew 8:11-12/Luke 13:28-29), as well as other teachings of Jesus.

If we grant that the original source of this tradition is Jesus himself (which seems likely), then at best this example shows that Jesus believed in a general resurrection of the dead coinciding with the arrival of the Kingdom of God. No surprise there. The Sadducees might not have shared that belief, but lots of folks did. Are you suggesting that because Jesus held a popular belief that somehow supports a physical resurrection? Or are you trying to show that the gospels are reliable because this tradition has multiple attestation?

Meier concludes that another instance is the Gospel teaching that Jesus’ family had rejected him, which coheres well with Jesus’ repeated teaching that believers will be called to leave their own families for the sake of himself and his Kingdom (such a Mark 10:29-31).

Apparently bible scholars haven't heard about your "objective, inductive, historical methodology" because J.D. Crossan comes to entirely different conclusions on both counts. He considers the Gospel accounts re Jesus family to be pro-hellenistic/anti-judahist polemic (Eisenman does too!), and the call to leave one's family behind is a rejection not of the family itself, but of the social hierarchy in miniature that we call a family. In the Kingdom of God everyone is equal, but in a family this is not so...

"Crossan paints a picture of oppression in the Lower Galilee, both by Herod Antipas, whose building programs abused local labor and trade, and the Temple authorities. Through association with the ruling Herodians, the Jerusalem leadership attempted to impose its power on the Galilee's villages and hamlets. In trying to help us understand what this meant for the region's peasants, Crossan distinguishes between the generic poor and the destitute. He claims that most of Jesus' teachings were aimed at those who had been displaced by the system. Understood in this way, Jesus' "hard" sayings--the admonitions to leave family, home and possessions--are not so hard after all. They are an after-the-fact theological validation of the status of the displaced, who had nothing left to give away; those so dispossessed are now qualified to enter the "kingdom." And this kingdom is the symbol for everything that opposes systemic evil (the conglomerate of political and economic power structures)." - from here.

"This is a view argued forcefully by Elizabeth Schussler Fiorenza, John Dominic Crossan, Gerd Theissen, and Theissen and Merz; for others see those listed by Kathleen Corely (1998:291, notes 3, 4). Proponents of this theory regard various New Testament texts as illustrative of Jesus' egalitarian stance. Jesus's injunctions to his followers to leave home, family, possessions, and protection are interpreted as an implied critique and rejection of the conventional patriarchal family and its hierarchical, male-dominated kinship structure." - from here.

Maybe you prefer Meier's analysis over Crossan's but unless you can definitively show that one is correct and the other is not, you'll have to allow for ambiguity and subjectivity. In the first example Jesus' belief is nothing special, as it coheres with a popular belief, and in the second example the evangelists' negative portrayal of Jesus' family is not even a close match with Jesus' teaching and can't be considered to cohere with it at all. This 'evidence' is extremely weak, do you have something more coherent?

[otseng]

Until then, I don’t have time for you and your ridiculously childish responses.

Since you have done neither, I still have no time for you.

Things like this is better left unsaid. Simply ignore him without having to comment on it.

[Zorro1]

Lotan,

I am answering your post because I appreciate the fact that you took the time to do the research. However, you missed my point. The reference to Meier was not an endorsement of his position, although he very well may be right. It was merely an example of how one scholar uses that particular criterion. This was to help FB understand his misunderstanding of the criterion.

Maybe you prefer Meier's analysis over Crossan's but unless you can definitively show that one is correct and the other is not, you'll have to allow for ambiguity and subjectivity.

If you review your quotes of the reasons given by Crossan for his position , you will notice that he does not reference his preference and bias (i.e. subjectivity), but external circumstances. In other words, he believes his position is objective.

We can debate whether he is right or wrong, but this is really another subject. You are actually helping my point. I said that the historians and scholars I cited came from different positions, you have provided great evidence of this fact on this one issue. Consider that there are hundreds of other points that all historians and scholars dealing with this issue disagree about! Given all the diversity between all these scholars, doesn't it seem interesting to you that over 95% of all scholars agree to those 12 facts I cited earlier? Yes, some of them have come to those conclusions in different ways, with different evidence. But, they have come to those conclusions.

Since this diverse crowd agrees, do we really have to battle out each and every point?

Z

[Zorro1]

Hello Zorro1

You say:

The problem with you and Confused and Cather is none of you have a clue how induction is done. All your accusations of “no facts,” “no method,” and “no criteria” are based on your bias opinion, not on induction as used in histography. And this is my BIG point: If we do use induction as it is used in histography, the only rational conclusion is that Jesus rose from the dead.

Induction is done this way:

There a white swan
There is a white swan
There is another white swan
Therefore all swans are white.

Well, that is the way some induction is done. By the way, next time, you may want to use an example with a true conclusion. Black swans do exist. History has its own methods, law has its methods and science has its own special methods. We can even see differences between the hard sciences and the soft sciences.

But you say "induction as used in histography". Well I'm not sure how you historians are using induction, if it is as I have described above then you need to reply to my last post. If it is not then I don't think you should be calling it induction, or at least be very explicit as to how the historians methodology differs from the standard methodology of induction.

Most books on this topic would go into details. I think the criteria I gave show a contrast between how a historian would gather evidence and perhaps how a physicist might gather evidence. The historian is gathering evidence for an event that took place once and only once, whereas the physicist maybe gathering evidence from repeatable experiments.

Z

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Zorro1

Induction is done this way:

There a white swan
There is a white swan
There is another white swan
Therefore all swans are white.

Well, that is the way some induction is done.

If we are doing logic then that is the way induction is done. There is no other way. As I said I have not read the whole thread but I got the impression you were equating your version of induction with formal logic and asking your critics to go take lessons in logic. That is highly misleading if that was what you are trying to say. If not then I misunderstood.

History has its own methods, law has its methods and science has its own special methods. We can even see differences between the hard sciences and the soft sciences.

I am happy to accept that. Looks about right to me. And if you want to call your criteria induction then ok too. Just it is not induction as that is understood by logicians, or how it is defined in my dictionary, and I think a qualifying sentence or too is needed. Like you have now supplied.

By the way, next time, you may want to use an example with a true conclusion. Black swans do exist.

Yep. Australian Black swan. But that just shows the weakness of formal induction first pointed out by Hume. Which was exactly the point I made in my first post to you.

Most books on this topic would go into details. I think the criteria I gave show a contrast between how a historian would gather evidence and perhaps how a physicist might gather evidence. The historian is gathering evidence for an event that took place once and only once, whereas the physicist maybe gathering evidence from repeatable experiments.

Again that looks about right too. Yes. But if a historian makes a claim to a physical event, that challenges the sciences of physics, biology and chemistry then the Historian wanders into the scientific discourse.That in a nut shell is my criticism of your criteria 7 back at my post 389.

7) Coherence--does the event fit well with other surrounding circumstances?

Well if you are not absorbing everything we know about science then

The only rational conclusion that can be drawn from the facts is that Jesus rose from the dead.

It would seem to me that even if a thorough and rigorous working through of all the historical evidence by way of any historical methodology pointed to that conclusion, by the limitations of logic and science you cannot draw that conclusion rationally.

A safer conclusion would be: and so we arrive at an historical conclusion that contradicts science and is incongruent from a general principle derived with inductive logic that says resurrection is not possible, then we better avoid any firm conclusions and treat it as a hypothetical.

Again I may be misunderstanding you Zorro1. And you may already have qualified this but for newcomers it would be helpful. Which of these conclusions are you saying the historical method and only the historical method leads you to.

1) Christ feigned death on the cross.
2) Christ was near death, vital signs reduced to a degree they were not perceived, and was mistaken as dead.
3) Like 2) Christ entered a physical state like a coma/trance and again mistaken for dead.
4) Christ was medically dead, with all the decaying process that entails for a full +48 hours.
5) Christ died on the Cross. Did not survive. And the rest is spin.

I know you do not subscribe to 5). I do.

But If you mean conclusion 4) then your conclusion is not rational without some serious attempt at a scientific explanation as to how that might come about. It is not rational because that requires a leap of the imagination if not faith.

Also on a different tack. I am interested to know. Are there any contemporary accounts from say Romans or Jews that do not convert to Christianity that make any note or reference to the crucifixion, before it is written down by the christians, and not derived second hand from a christian source. The sort of thing I have in mind is someone saying I heard a funny thing the other day about a prisoner in Jerusalem who was crucified but there is a rumour he survived, or some such. But not written 50 years later. Anything at all?

As you can guess Zorro1 I am an atheist. I think Christianity is a big political lie. However I'd have to take that kind of evidence seriously, and might then be persuaded that 1, 2 or 3 is the case, rather than 5.

FB

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Zorro1

Yes, the theorem x-> ~(~x) is still true. Your point is…?

There is a difference between taking a bunch of criteria and working through the evidence by way of that criteria, and taken a different set of criteria working through the same set of evidence and reaching a different conclusion.

Neither method may be a full formal logical argument. Sometimes there are arguments of plausibility, and differing interpretations etc. So there is a difference between following a reasoned train of thought and formal logic.

Thus even if I subscribed to your conclusion, which I don't, it would be wrong to say it is the only rational conclusion. Hey, are you saying that the 5% of scholars who disagree with you are irrational?

I would be curious to know what fallacy you think you would be committing if you came to the strong conclusion that Jesus rose from the dead, based on a cogent argument? Are you referring here to your dead men stay dead argument? You have one inductive argument concluding that dead men don’t rise and another saying a dead man did rise, so based on this, you feel it would be fallacious to accept the resurrection? Do I have this right?

Ok you've widened your methodology out. But the point was if your method was inductive, and you were reaching a conclusion based on induction then the resurrection would be like a black swan. It is the event that breaks the back of the inductive method. So any position based on that route of reasoning would be fallacious.

My criticism of your criteria 7 is that it seems to be myopic, and that if your historical method reaches a supernatural conclusion then you are entering the discourse of science which demands the scientific methodology, and not historical.
So your conclusion that Christ rose from the dead is unsafe, and because of the narrow view it offers is an unreasonable stance.

However, you may have done this already, but have you clearly defined what you mean when you say Christ rose from the dead? Does your historical method and only your method lead you to:

1/ Jesus' vital signs just reduced and he was mistaken for dead.
2/ Jesus died as defined by medical science and underwent the physical deterioration of death for a full +48 hours.
3/ Full blown supernatural resurrection.

I currently subscribe to the view that he probably died on the cross, did not survive and the rest is just spin.

However I am interested to know. Is there any contemporary account. Non Christian. Maybe Roman or Jew. That goes anything like. I visited Jerusalem last month. A guy by the name of Jesus was crucified. There's already a rumour he survived. Something not written 50 years later, and something not derived from Christian sources. Anything? The kind of thing this old cynic might accept as objective evidence, that might move me to accept 1/.

FB

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi Zorro1,

Apologies, I replied to one post without seeing an earlier reply, made a bit of a mess up, and now I've got two arguments that partly cover the same ground. Hope you can make sense of it all.

FB

[Lotan]

I am answering your post because I appreciate the fact that you took the time to do the research.

That's big of you.

However, you missed my point. The reference to Meier was not an endorsement of his position, although he very well may be right. It was merely an example of how one scholar uses that particular criterion. This was to help FB understand his misunderstanding of the criterion.

Your point was obvious, but you chose a poor example (for reasons that I've already shown).
I think FB understands the criterion well enough but you may not.

If you review your quotes of the reasons given by Crossan for his position , you will notice that he does not reference his preference and bias (i.e. subjectivity), but external circumstances. In other words, he believes his position is objective.

Are you saying that Meier does not believe that his position is also objective then? Wouldn't you argue that an "objective, inductive, historical methodology" must lead them to the same conclusion? In fact you did...

The criterion must be objective. In other words, the test should yield the same result, regardless of the personal opinions of those applying it.

So, by this measure, at least one of these scholars is not objective and unless you can show which one it is you can't claim that either of them are.

We can debate whether he is right or wrong, but this is really another subject.

Right. We're discussing the criterion of coherence and how it can be applied by objective scholars to produce completely different conclusions!
Since you bring it up though, both of these examples were quite poor, in particular the one about family...

...Jesus’ family had rejected him, which coheres well with Jesus’ repeated teaching that believers will be called to leave their own families...

So the gospels say in some places that Jesus' family rejected him and in other places that he rejects them. That is actually the opposite of coherence.

You are actually helping my point. I said that the historians and scholars I cited came from different positions, you have provided great evidence of this fact on this one issue. Consider that there are hundreds of other points that all historians and scholars dealing with this issue disagree about! Given all the diversity between all these scholars, doesn't it seem interesting to you that over 95% of all scholars agree to those 12 facts I cited earlier?

It seems interesting to everybody from what I've read on this thread. I've already pointed out the possible sources of bias that lead to these 12 so-called facts in Post 372, but rather than addressing them, you chose to dismiss them with this little gem...

Most of the rest of your post, like most of your posts, can be chocked up to your ignorance of logic, as I have pointed out in past posts. Since I have no desire to teach logic to you and since in past posts you have already shown that you will reject any principle of logic that refutes your position, all I will say, as I have in the past, is take a class on logic. You simply can’t reason with a man that either doesn’t know the rules of reason or rejects the rules of reason when their application shows him wrong.

Ad hominem is a lot easier that answering objections isn't it? Here are the problems (again) with those 'facts'...

So already we have at least 3 sources of subjective bias regarding these 12 'facts'; the personal biases of the scholars themselves, the bias represented by including bible scholars who are mainly bible believing Christians (The disclaimer "These scholars include staunch atheists, skeptics, liberals, moderates and conservatives." Tells us nothing about the proportion of this group.), and the bias of the person(s) who collected the various opinions.

So don't just tell me that I'm wrong, actually show me that I am and I'll be happy to give those 'facts' their proper consideration. Until then you're just another apologist trying to sell another unsupported assertion.

Since this diverse crowd agrees, do we really have to battle out each and every point?

We haven't even established whether this sample actually is "diverse". Should we just take Habermas' word for it?

[Cathar1950]

Zorro1 wrote:

You are actually helping my point. I said that the historians and scholars I cited came from different positions, you have provided great evidence of this fact on this one issue. Consider that there are hundreds of other points that all historians and scholars dealing with this issue disagree about! Given all the diversity between all these scholars, doesn't it seem interesting to you that over 95% of all scholars agree to those 12 facts I cited earlier?

I would like to see your data on this.
Where are these 95% that agree on all 12 facts.
We want to see the numbers and how you arrived at such a statement.
I want to see 95% of them agreeing on all 12 not 50% on 6 and 45% on 8 or even 23% in 1. Let us see the 95% on all 12.
Where is the data? Show you work.
You may use both sides of the paper if you like.

[Zorro1]

Zorro1 wrote:

You are actually helping my point. I said that the historians and scholars I cited came from different positions, you have provided great evidence of this fact on this one issue. Consider that there are hundreds of other points that all historians and scholars dealing with this issue disagree about! Given all the diversity between all these scholars, doesn't it seem interesting to you that over 95% of all scholars agree to those 12 facts I cited earlier?

I would like to see your data on this.
Where are these 95% that agree on all 12 facts.
We want to see the numbers and how you arrived at such a statement.
I want to see 95% of them agreeing on all 12 not 50% on 6 and 45% on 8 or even 23% in 1. Let us see the 95% on all 12.
Where is the data? Show you work.
You may use both sides of the paper if you like.

Here is an argument that discusses many of the points we have gone over in this thread:
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/J_ ... 2_2005.htm