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?

[Cathar1950]

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.

Thank you Lotan for the help.

I ran into the idea that Luke used Josephus from reading Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus where he points out that Luke made the same mistakes that Josephus made almost word for word. Since then I have found others. Carrier was late information for me. But other earlier scholars have questioned Luke long before Eisenman.
Burton Mack and S. G. F. Brandon give Luke a date as late as 140-150 CE.
Now I have to go back and read the rest of the post to see what I missed.

[Goat]

That being, is the New Testament the works of a credible eyewitness. The answer is NO.

Another useless atheist assertion. Show me how they aren't reliable. Give me some proof now that you've opened your mouth. Give me some substance not just your pressupponisticallful opinion.[/quote]

Show me ONE account from an eyewitness, and let us look at that.

The Gospels claim there were eyewitnesses. However, none of the Gospels were written by someone who WAS an eyewitness. That is admitted by Christian biblical scholars.

And, no, I am not an atheist.

[Lotan]

For that to be a strawman argument I would have had to assert it was your argument, I did not.

Am I not included in your generalization "the Atheist"? You never specify that you are referring to any particular person, only to your idea of the embodiment of atheism, "the Atheist".

I simply used it as a real life example that I encountered of the problem that could occur if this guideline is not followed.

But your "Atheist" isn't a "real life example", it is your own creation. The principle could be applied equally well to a creationist, or anyone else, so it's not really telling us anything about atheism, is it?

Do some atheists insist on 100% certainty? Yes, they do.

I'm sure that some do, but this problem is hardly exclusive to atheists. You haven't even shown that it is even common to them, so your objection is merely an unsupported polemic.

Do a search on this very thread and see if the term “irrefutable evidence” has not popped up a couple of times in the discussion of inductive conclusions.

OK, here's one...

Seriously, I've questioned many of the Christian supernatural claims. The obvious one is Christ's resurrection. Based on the arguments for and against that I've read. I have seen no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell me it did not happen.

Oh, pardon me. I forgot that it's only "the Atheist" that requires "irrefutable evidence"!

Let's try again...

... without irrefutable evidence, a rational person must believe that dead people stay dead.

Works for me.

Here's another...

As for other religions. I guess I'd need an example with the documentation, witnesses etc. to make that judgement.

And you would give them the same benefit of the doubt? So long as they have no irrefutable piece of evidence against them, their supernatural claims will be accepted as true?

So we should accept all ancient claims, since it's unreasonable to expect "irrefutable evidence" of anything.

The conclusion is that it is more probable than not that a single person named Napoleon Bonaparte never existed. The big problem with this reasoning is that at the time of its printing Napoleon was still alive on St. Helena.
Whately’s point is that the historical skepticism regarding miracles by Hume and those who followed him leads to outrageous conclusions when applied to some current events and living figures.

I see what you mean...

""But what shall we say to the testimony of those many respectable persons who went to Plymouth on purpose, and saw Buonaparte with their own eyes? must they not trust their senses?" I would not disparage either the eyesight or the veracity of these gentlemen. I am ready to allow that they went to Plymouth for the purpose of seeing Buonaparte; nay, more, that they actually rowed out into the harbour in a boat, and came alongside of a man-of-war, on whose deck they saw a man in a cocked hat, who, they were told, was Buonaparte. This is the utmost point to which their testimony goes; how they ascertained that this man in the cocked hat had gone through all the marvellous and romantic adventures with which we have so long been amused, we are not told. Did they perceive in his physiognomy, his true name, and authentic history? Truly this evidence is such as country people give one for a story of apparitions; if you discover any signs of incredulity, they triumphantly show the very house which the ghost haunted, the identical dark corner where it used to vanish, and perhaps even the tombstone of the person whose death it foretold."

Whately shows conclusively that if you take skepticism to a ridiculous level, you can doubt anything. Big deal. Could even Josephine have really known who her husband was? Maybe he was a twin, switched at birth. If you'd like to invoke the supernatural then any number of possibilities is avilable to us; maybe Satan went insane and believed that he was Napoleon!

If the same argument that shows it is not rational to believe in the resurrection of Jesus, also shows that it is not rational to believe that Napoleon lived, it is safe to conclude that the argument is seriously flawed.

I have my doubts that Hume's argument has been applied correctly here. Can you show that it has? Besides, the existence of a man, even an emperor is a commonplace event. It doesn't violate any natural laws. It's not contrary to human experience. The resurrection of Jesus' would be an unique event.

Interesting that you identify “objective” with “certainty.”

Interesting that you say I do. I said no such thing.

You will notice that I do not.

Good for you!

One of the purposes of using induction and deduction is to eliminate subjectivity from the rational process; yet no inductive conclusion is ever seen as certain. In fact, if your likes, dislikes and preferences are part of the method, your argument is by definition, irrational.

You're preaching to the choir now...

It should be obvious that if two people have the same evidence and both are using inductive methods, yet come to different conclusions, their conclusions are not based on the evidence and the method, but at least one (if not both) is based, as you put it, on their personal opinions. To insist that subjectivity must play a role in determining all conclusions is to reject rationality.

And to insist that subjectivity does not play a role in determining conclusions is to reject reality. Some degree of personal bias is unavoidable, but you'll notice that it is churches who begin with a 'statement of faith'. Your requirement that "the test should yield the same result, regardless of the personal opinions of those applying it" is unrealistic to say the least. It is a thinly disguised call for absolute certainty based on absolute objectivity. If we had to reject every criterion that didn't meet this requirement there would be no point in trying to determine the probability of anything.

Do I really have to say that personal bias shouldn’t be part of a rational argument?

No, and since I haven't said that either, I wonder why you bother?

I didn’t say every atheist believes that, just this one guy.

So, congratulations! You've shown that one atheist (jokingly) made an unreasonable demand for evidence! Hardly worth the bandwidth don't you think? It's still enough for you to conclude...

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.

So the Atheist is being unreasonable because he "does not like" the event?
Since you are so concerned with the fallacy of "Special Pleading" maybe you can explain why it is that we are expected to believe miraculous tales from the Bible, and reject similar material from all other sources?

[Lotan]

I ran into the idea that Luke used Josephus from reading Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus where he points out that Luke made the same mistakes that Josephus made almost word for word. Since then I have found others. Carrier was late information for me. But other earlier scholars have questioned Luke long before Eisenman.
Burton Mack and S. G. F. Brandon give Luke a date as late as 140-150 CE.

Sorry Cathar, but this must be incorrect because achilles12604 said quite clearly that...

...the only scholar that views the second possibility as even likely (certainly not proven) is Carrier.

Are you suggesting that achilles12604 was applying logic inconsistently?

[Confused]

OK guys, great info for a thread on validity and reliability of ancient history, but related to current thread how???

Great question! There are two types of logic, inductive and deductive. The previous posts concerning historical reliability are an attempt by me and other Christians, to consistently apply inductive logic. As a side bar, it also shows that a number of atheists/agnostics (but not all) are not willing to consistently apply inductive logic.

Regards,

Z

Thanks for the clarification. I often get "confused" hence the handle.

[McCulloch]

I ran into the idea that Luke used Josephus from reading Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus where he points out that Luke made the same mistakes that Josephus made almost word for word.

Off topic. Is it just me, or does anyone else find Eisenman incredibly dull? His research is thorough and his logic quite good and he provides mountains of evidence. But I have problems staying awake for more than ten pages at a time. It seems to me that he has a tendency to labour his points. Maybe I need Biblical Archeology for Dummies.

[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.

Thank you Lotan for the help.

I ran into the idea that Luke used Josephus from reading Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus where he points out that Luke made the same mistakes that Josephus made almost word for word. Since then I have found others. Carrier was late information for me. But other earlier scholars have questioned Luke long before Eisenman.
Burton Mack and S. G. F. Brandon give Luke a date as late as 140-150 CE.
Now I have to go back and read the rest of the post to see what I missed.

140-150 and you say I am ignoring evidence. Wow.

First find me a scholar who thinks John was not the last one written. I assure you that almost every single source I have ever read puts John at the tail end of things.

With this in mind, the Chester Papyri was dated to around 120-130 AD. This is an actual piece of the book of John. So I'm sorry if I seem to be ignoring evidence, but just this one artifact puts your ideas into shambles.

And you say I ignore evidence

[achilles12604]

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?

I'll start a new thread on this topic. Lets have it out there.

[Cathar1950]

I ran into the idea that Luke used Josephus from reading Robert Eisenman's James the Brother of Jesus where he points out that Luke made the same mistakes that Josephus made almost word for word. Since then I have found others. Carrier was late information for me. But other earlier scholars have questioned Luke long before Eisenman.
Burton Mack and S. G. F. Brandon give Luke a date as late as 140-150 CE.

Sorry Cathar, but this must be incorrect because achilles12604 said quite clearly that...

...the only scholar that views the second possibility as even likely (certainly not proven) is Carrier.

Are you suggesting that achilles12604 was applying logic inconsistently?

I guess we should send the correct information to all those non-existent scholars.
Maybe he meant Carrier was the only one "he" knew about?
McCulloch:

Off topic. Is it just me, or does anyone else find Eisenman incredibly dull? His research is thorough and his logic quite good and he provides mountains of evidence. But I have problems staying awake for more than ten pages at a time. It seems to me that he has a tendency to labour his points. Maybe I need Biblical Archeology for Dummies.

I couldn't agree with you more. I found him repetitive. I have read the book at least 3 times and each time I am thinking. “I know that can we get to the point?”
His endnotes are interesting and did lead me to many interesting sources.
I have read a few people that do a better job at Eisenman then Eisenman.
I would like to read some newer research in archeology. I do enjoy Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman and there is a female archeologist but I forget her name. She does a lot of NT stuff.
I prefer ones that are not trying to prove anything with their preconceived notions and desire to prove every thing they believe about the bible is true and the word of God. They have more Repetition then Eisenman and after you have read one you have read them all.

“They found the Mount of Olives therefore Jesus died for your sins and was raised and now sits on the right side of himself.”

[Cathar1950]

140-150 and you say I am ignoring evidence. Wow.

First find me a scholar who thinks John was not the last one written. I assure you that almost every single source I have ever read puts John at the tail end of things.

With this in mind, the Chester Papyri was dated to around 120-130 AD. This is an actual piece of the book of John. So I'm sorry if I seem to be ignoring evidence, but just this one artifact puts your ideas into shambles.

And you say I ignore evidence

I was referring to Luke and Matthew. I guess I should have been clearer but when I write of the gospels using Mark I assumed everyone knew John was not one of the synoptic writings. Later and with a more developed Christology then Mark, John has it’s own flavor and is battling Pharisees and Dociests/Gnostics in a community that had experienced a separation from the synagogue. I think, as do others John was written before Luke and Matthew after Mark, which was their outline or pattern.

Chester Papyri was dated to around 120-130 AD. This is an actual piece of the book of John.

How much of John is this fragment? Who dated it and do they all agree?
Again I was speaking of Matthew and Luke as the context clearly shows.
Is this what you are referring too?
Please tell us all about the Chester Papyri.

From McDowell, pp. 46-48)

Manuscript (MS) Date Notes

Chester Beatty Papyri 200 A.D. Much but not all of NT on papyrus.