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?

[Zorro1]

5 tokens for Zorro! You come bashing out of the gate like a pro and despite the sound of a huge vacuum cleaner, you cling to God's carpet!
Keep it up!

Let's see, you attack me, simply because I pointed out a few fallacies, but you say nothing about those who actually committed the fallacies.

Maybe I got the topic wrong, I thought it had to do with logic.

'nough said?

Z

[Lotan]

Zorro1 has provided a perfect example of Christian 'logic' for us to examine...

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!

What a cute little strawman! I never knew that Atheists, or anyone else expected "100% certainty that Jesus rose from the dead". I must not be an atheist myself then, because I've never had that kind of high expectation. In fact there must be precious few atheists out there because in all the reading that I've done over the years I can't recall even one so-called atheist who has this requirement. Please give us a few quotes from some well known atheists who have voiced this expectation Zorro, I'm sure that would be enlightening.

2) The conclusions of the criterion cannot conflict with known fact. It is also improper to have a test that not only falsifies the issue at hand, but other issues we already affirm to be true. For example, let's take David Hume's tests for the miraculous which are found in his "Treatise on Human Understanding." Here Hume set up a battery of tests. In the end these tests show that no one can affirm that a miracle ever took place. However, in Hume's own day it was shown that, given these same tests, no one could affirm that Napoleon had been Emperor of France, or that he had ever lived. This was an intriguing idea since Napoleon was still alive and living in exile.

Shown by whom Zorro? Please elaborate.

Here's a condensed version of Hume's argument...

"SECTION X
OF MIRACLES
Part I
Evidence for the truth of our Christian religion is founded on the testimony of eye-witnesses to the miracles of our saviour, by which he proved his divine mission. Our evidence is then less than that of our senses, it is external evidence and not brought home to everyone's breast by the immediate operation of the holy spirit.
I flatter myself that I have discovered an argument, which, if just, will, with the wise and learned, be an everlasting check to all kinds of superstitious delusion, and consequently will be useful as long as the world endures.
A miracle is a violation of the laws of nature. It is no miracle that a man, seemingly in good health, should die of a sudden; such a death, though unusual, has frequently been observed. But it is a miracle that a dead man should come to life; because that has never been observed. There must, therefore, be a uniform experience against every miraculous event, otherwise it would not merit the appellation.
The consequent general maxim is, "That no testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle, unless the testimony be of such kind, that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavours to establish."
When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I consider whether it be more probable that this person deceive or be deceived, or that the fact should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates; then, and not till then, can he pretend to command by belief or opinion.

Part II In the foregoing we have supposed that testimony of a miracle may amount to a proof, but it is easy to shew that we have been too liberal.
First, there is not to be found in all history any chroniclers of a miracle who are entirely above suspicion.
Secondly. The passion of surprise or wonder, being an agreeable emotion, tends towards the belief in miracles, even among those who must hear only stories. Eloquence leaves little room for reflection.
Thirdly. it forms a strong presumption against supernatural revelations that they chiefly abound among ignorant and barbarous nations. It is strange a judicious reader is apt to say that such prodigious events never happen in our days.
Fourth. Testimony that a religion is proved by miracles, must confound itself. The religions of ancient Rome, Turkey, Siam or China abound in miracles. But to claim that the miracles of one's religion confound all others, must likewise destroy all credit in miracles.
I need not add the difficulty of detecting falsehoods. Even a court of judicature, with all the authority, accuracy and judgement it can employ, often finds itself at a loss to distinguish truth from falsehood. The wise and learned commonly think the infancy of new religions too small a matter to deserve regard, and when they would later detect a cheat, the season is past and the witnesses perished.
It is experience alone which gives authority to human testimony; and it is the same experience which assures us of the laws of nature. Our most holy religion is founded on Faith, not reason, and whoever assents to it is conscious of a continued miracle in his own person, which subverts all the principles of his understanding." - from here.

Please explain to us how that could be applied to the question of Napoleon's existence. I'm sure it's fascinating.

3) The criterion must be objective. In other words, the test should yield the same result, regardless of the personal opinions of those applying it. If the test only disproves the resurrection when an Atheist applies it, or only substantiates the resurrection when a Christian applies it, the test should be rejected.

There's really nothing like compartmentalized thinking, is there? Point #1 taught us that the requirement of 100% certainty was "a categorical fallacy!" Yet so soon after we are asked for a criterion that is 100% certain! What fun.
This point fails to address the simple fact that no two people think alike. Given the same set of facts they will inevitably draw different conclusions. That doesn't mean that all opinions are equal.

4) The criterion must be one which has been used in historical research and has been demonstrated as a reliable way of determining history. I was recently reading a paper written by an Atheist. In the paper he admits that there is more evidence for the reliability of the New Testament than any other book of ancient times. However, he still rejected the resurrection because he felt there was not sufficient evidence for the reliability of the documents or the event. He listed what he considered to be sufficient evidence. At the top of the list was video tape of the event. If we could produce video tape of the resurrection of Jesus, this Atheist would be tempted to believe. Besides the obvious absurdity of this criterion, this criterion is not now, nor ever has been a criterion used by historians to detiermine ancient history. It is an instance of the logical fallacy "Special Pleading." It is a criterion which is set up with the sole purpose of disproving the event at hand, an event the Atheist does not like, but is never used to evaluate other events of the period.

What a steaming pile! The first sentence is OK, but after that it's a strawman misrepresentation. Please tells us the name of the paper and the Atheist who wrote it Zorro. Could you do that? Then we can all make our own judgement.

[Cmass]

Cmass wrote:
5 tokens for Zorro! You come bashing out of the gate like a pro and despite the sound of a huge vacuum cleaner, you cling to God's carpet!
Keep it up!

Let's see, you attack me, simply because I pointed out a few fallacies, but you say nothing about those who actually committed the fallacies.
Maybe I got the topic wrong, I thought it had to do with logic.
'nough said?
Z

Pause...
Breathe....
Cmas donated tokens for your effort and willingness to jump right in on the topic even though the nasty atheists are eating you alive. He did not do so as an attack. He is, however, also teasing you.

[achilles12604]

We insist that engineers, financial advisors, physicians, etc. have reason and evidence for what they do, but religious leaders are not held to the same standard. Intelligent people lower their requirements for evidence when pressed about their religious faith. In no other domain of knowledge is belief without evidence considered a desirable quality.

I think MrWhy said it better than I.
- C

Sorry I'm jumping in late. I was held up because I had to don my APOLOGIST suit and fly from a building top to save a woman and her baby from a pack of evil demons trying to send her to hell.

I'm late but at least I am here. Ok then . .

I think that the biggest flaw with this line of reasoning is equating the realms of engineers, financial advisors, physicians with religion in the first place. A more accurate equivalent realm of study would be history.

As with history, nothing is absolutely sure. This is something that has certainly been established on this forum. We can not be 100% certain of the validity of religion. But on the other hand we can not be 100% certain of many (most of you include everyday occurences) historical events. Since religion also strikes on a personal level with most people, this problem becomes magnified. Suddenly peoples bias becomes a key factor in analyizing evidence, evaluating claims and forming conclusions. I believe we would see this same thing if people were as polarized about who fought in what battle or which king did what or the like. The difference is no one really cares about those things on the same level as religion.

The opening lines to the movie Braveheart echo's many non-theists writings on this post concerning history. They wrote, history was written by the victors.

On to a second point, I actually agree that Christians do tend to favor their own religions viewpoint and probably don't weigh the evidence equally. This bias is almost impossible to either deny or get rid of. However, this same line of thinking can be applied to non-theists as well.

Take for example the discussion that Cathar and myself have had on several occasions concerning Luke vs Josephus.

I point out that in this case, most scholars agree with my side. ECW certainly points this direction and so far the only scholar that views the second possibility as even likely (certainly not proven) is Carrier. However, the fact that most of the sources either he or I can find disagree's with him has not altered his view. He still holds that Luke borrowed his writings from Josephus instead of them both citing sources that said about the same thing because it did happen that way.

This is an example of a non-theist being guilty of the exact same reasoning that this thread accuses Christians of using. So I would humbly submit that Christians and Non-theists alike have the same tendency when it comes to bias and how they evaluate evidence.

[Cmass]

This is an example of a non-theist being guilty of the exact same reasoning that this thread accuses Christians of using. So I would humbly submit that Christians and Non-theists alike have the same tendency when it comes to bias and how they evaluate evidence.

Well done Achilles!
5 tokens for you.

[Lotan]

Let's see, you attack me, simply because I pointed out a few fallacies, but you say nothing about those who actually committed the fallacies.

Neither do you! We have no idea who these atheist strawman caricatures are. I could create equally obtuse Christian strawmen and argue against them too, but that would hardly be constructive. The one atheist that you...oops, I mean G. Brady Lenardos actually names (David Hume) has according to this article commited some logical error, but we'll have to take your...oops, I mean G. Brady Lenardos' word for it because we are not told what that error was. Until we are told, it's a matter of opinion, at best.

I point out that in this case, most scholars agree with my side. ECW certainly points this direction and so far the only scholar that views the second possibility as even likely (certainly not proven) is Carrier.

How can you make any sort of logical deductions when you ignore basic facts? Carrier is hardly the "only scholar that views the second possibility as even likely"! In the very first paragraph of Carrier's article he mentions Steve Mason (...widely recognized as one of the foremost authorities on Josephus today.) who is the lead proponent for the idea, so right from the start your argument is based on error. A five minute web search turned up these names as well...
Paul Tobin, Hugh J. Schonfield, Robert Eisler, F. C. Burkitt, Heinrich Holtzmann, Adolph Hausrath, Keim and Karl Clemen, Robinson Smith, Hilgenfeld, Holsten, Julicher, Krenkel, Weizsacker, and Wernle.
Besides these, there are scholars for whom this is an open issue as I'm sure you already know.
It doesn't seem possible that someone could research this issue even superficially without being aware of Mason's contributions so it is difficult to take seriously any claim on your part to have based your opinion on 'the facts'.

However, the fact that most of the sources either he or I can find disagree's with him has not altered his view. He still holds that Luke borrowed his writings from Josephus instead of them both citing sources that said about the same thing because it did happen that way.

Is that a result of bias, or an honest assessment of the evidence? Please provide evidence for your answer.

This is an example of a non-theist being guilty of the exact same reasoning that this thread accuses Christians of using.

But, you haven't shown this. IIRC Cathar presented evidence and argument to support his view. Did he also ignore evidence, as you have?

[Confused]

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?

To be honest, I have seen many christians admit to some of their own skepticism about some of the events stated in the bible. Yet they still accept them as truth. While I admit to getting frustrated and wanting to pull my hair out because logic clearly shows that what the bible is claiming is clearly an impossibility and it would defy logic. I get just as frustrated when I hear them quote one thing, then quote another that negates the previous. Or in one thread they use a passage as pro something, then in another thread, that same passage is used as anti something.

But I do think that they are applying logic consistently. I think they apply it based on their level of understanding and interpretation. Based on this, yes they are consistent.

Now for the side of me that struggles with believing in a concept of god. When I use logic, I try to use it devoid of emotion. Only when we observe something from a neutral standpoint can we find the truth in our answers. Unfortunately, religion doesn't allow for this. Their foundation is built on faith, which for lack of a better way of explaining it, it is built on emotions. Therefore, one cannot debate christianity in a logical format because a christian is already placed their emotions into their interpretations leaving for a consistently illogical conclusion.

Bad opinion, I know, but one nonetheless

[Goose]

Are you saying it is more credible because it took place 2000 years back? I don't understand that reasoning, but would like to hear more about it. It's exactly those ancient eyes I trust less because everyone was more superstitious, and less educated. The age does not improve the credibility of the resurrection story it make it more suspect. We can't even get the facts about who did what in our government last year. Extensive special investigation and it's still difficult to figure out who leaked the story. What chance is there we can trust the resurrection story?

No not all. In fact I agree. As time passes things get hazier and more subject to myth, etc. That's why we document things. But if you are correct about your example with the government, how can we logically believe anything from the past that we have not witnessed with our own eyes?

My point is that if it happened 2000 years ago we have to use the evidence that is provided don't we. This is only logical. We also need to take into account the culture of the time and the manner in which this evidence is recorded to make our decision wouldn't you agree? After all, this how historians come to conclusions isn't it?
So then, my question to you is, do you believe that a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed at or around the time Christians claim him to have existed? (if not please tell me why) I think we can at least agree that hisorians would confirm that in fact he existed. So how did they arrive at this conclusion. The evidence we use to determine he existed among other things is the NT, Josephus, Tacitus, etc. Yet that same evidence that you might use to prove he existed is for some reason discredited as soon as a supernatural claim is made. The sceptics cry "not enough evidence, show me more proof, I need extra special evidence for an extra special event." This leads to me assume only one thing. It is as I mentioned in my first post, all dependant upon one's presuppositions to the supernatural and not really an issue of evidence, wouldn't you agree?

[McCulloch]

The sceptics cry "not enough evidence, show me more proof, I need extra special evidence for an extra special event." This leads to me assume only one thing. It is as I mentioned in my first post, all dependant upon one's presuppositions to the supernatural and not really an issue of evidence, wouldn't you agree?

If I told you that I went to the store and bought milk yesterday, there is a good chance that you would believe me. If I then produced a dated receipt showing the purchase, you would estimate that the probability that I did go to the store, as I said that I did, to be quite high.
However, if I also said that on my way back, the ground opened up and up from a fiery underground hole, Satan came up and offered me wealth and riches in exchange for my soul, you might be forgiven for being a bit skeptical. You, I presume, would not be since you do not have a presupposition against the supernatural. But most rational folks, might still believe that I went to the store an bought milk, but would reserve judgment or may even disbelieve my encounter with the Lord of the Underworld.

There are many ancient documents which scholars use to try to evaluate historical information. Ancient Troy was found using information from Homer's accounts. That does not mean that we believe that the Olympian Gods did what Homer said that they did in the Trojan wars, does it?

[MrWhy]

If I told you that I went to the store and bought milk yesterday, there is a good chance that you would believe me. If I then produced a dated receipt showing the purchase, you would estimate that the probability that I did go to the store, as I said that I did, to be quite high.
However, if I also said that on my way back, the ground opened up and up from a fiery underground hole, Satan came up and offered me wealth and riches in exchange for my soul, you might be forgiven for being a bit skeptical. You, I presume, would not be since you do not have a presupposition against the supernatural. But most rational folks, might still believe that I went to the store an bought milk, but would reserve judgment or may even disbelieve my encounter with the Lord of the Underworld.

There are many ancient documents which scholars use to try to evaluate historical information. Ancient Troy was found using information from Homer's accounts. That does not mean that we believe that the Olympian Gods did what Homer said that they did in the Trojan wars, does it?

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.