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?

[Goat]

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

There is problem with the 'Chester Papyri' being dated to that, since it isn't dated to that time frame (It is dated between 250 and 350).

Maybe you mean the Rhyland fragment that is dated from between 100 and 150 ce.?? P52???

[Goose]

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.

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.

Sorry, my mistake, I assumed you were.

I don't remember claiming at any point the Gospels were written by a person who witnessed the resurrection directly. They are accounts taken of what people who witnessed the resurrection are reported to have said. I understand that you feel it crucial to have documents written by first hand eye witnesses (someone standing outside the tomb with a note pad and pen and video camera), current day resurrections of Elvis, modern day healings, modern day appearances of Jesus, more elaborate and detailed documentation of his resurrection, in order for you to believe in the Resurrection. I accept this based on your presuppositions to the supernational and the claims of the NT and the manner in which they are reported. I accept that because you have not seen a dead person rise, or been given what you feel is enough evidence, you therefore do not believe it can happen. Fine. No argument here.

But this isn't evangalism class. I'm not here to convince you to believe. Personally, it makes no difference to me, if I'm honest. This is however, Christianity and apologetics. Wikipedia's definition is: Christian apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity . You see that. I'm on the defence. Not the offence. The defence in a trial is only required to cause resonable doubt. It is up to the offence/prosecution to provide an iron clad case. So I stand by my post on page one firmly. I see no tangible or irrefutable piece of evidence to show me that Christ did not in fact rise from the dead as attested to in the NT. You cannot prove undeniably that the Claims of Christianty are false. You can call this negative proof reasoning, or whatever, and talk about leprechauns all you want. You can accuse me of not applying logic consistently. But until you can give me something of substance other than your opinions, speculations, or conclusions of a scholar with presuppositions against Christian claims, there is nothing to debate. Agreed? Anyone? Anyone?

[bernee51]

Wikipedia's definition is: Christian apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity . You see that. I'm on the defence. Not the offence. The defence in a trial is only required to cause resonable doubt. It is up to the offence/prosecution to provide an iron clad case. So I stand by my post on page one firmly. I see no tangible or irrefutable piece of evidence to show me that Christ did not in fact rise from the dead as attested to in the NT. You cannot prove undeniably that the Claims of Christianty are false. You can call this negative proof reasoning, or whatever, and talk about leprechauns all you want. You can accuse me of not applying logic consistently. But until you can give me something of substance other than your opinions, speculations, or conclusions of a scholar with presuppositions against Christian claims, there is nothing to debate. Agreed? Anyone? Anyone?

I'm afraid you have it back to front. It is you making th positive claim that a dead person can be raised back to life. This goes against all evidence and observation. It is you who must provide the evidence.

What's that? You can't? can anyone? Anyone?

BTW: the bolded text above is what is known as a 'straw man'. It is the device apologists resort to when they have no argument

[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.

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.

Sorry, my mistake, I assumed you were.

I don't remember claiming at any point the Gospels were written by a person who witnessed the resurrection directly. They are accounts taken of what people who witnessed the resurrection are reported to have said. I understand that you feel it crucial to have documents written by first hand eye witnesses (someone standing outside the tomb with a note pad and pen and video camera), current day resurrections of Elvis, modern day healings, modern day appearances of Jesus, more elaborate and detailed documentation of his resurrection, in order for you to believe in the Resurrection. I accept this based on your presuppositions to the supernational and the claims of the NT and the manner in which they are reported. I accept that because you have not seen a dead person rise, or been given what you feel is enough evidence, you therefore do not believe it can happen. Fine. No argument here.

But this isn't evangalism class. I'm not here to convince you to believe. Personally, it makes no difference to me, if I'm honest. This is however, Christianity and apologetics. Wikipedia's definition is: Christian apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity . You see that. I'm on the defence. Not the offence. The defence in a trial is only required to cause resonable doubt. It is up to the offence/prosecution to provide an iron clad case. So I stand by my post on page one firmly. I see no tangible or irrefutable piece of evidence to show me that Christ did not in fact rise from the dead as attested to in the NT. You cannot prove undeniably that the Claims of Christianty are false. You can call this negative proof reasoning, or whatever, and talk about leprechauns all you want. You can accuse me of not applying logic consistently. But until you can give me something of substance other than your opinions, speculations, or conclusions of a scholar with presuppositions against Christian claims, there is nothing to debate. Agreed? Anyone? Anyone?

You are providing a spectacular evidence about the OP... on how Christians donot consisitantly apply logic. You have demonstrated quite completely that Christian apologists apply a different standard to the bible than to any other claim.

Claims with as much validity as the New Testament from other religions are disguarded, yet, the New Testament is without flaw in many Christian eyes.

[McCulloch]

I'm not here to convince you to believe. Personally, it makes no difference to me, if I'm honest. This is however, Christianity and apologetics. Wikipedia's definition is: Christian apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity . You see that. I'm on the defense. Not the offense. The defense in a trial is only required to cause reasonable doubt. It is up to the offense/prosecution to provide an iron clad case. So I stand by my post on page one firmly. I see no tangible or irrefutable piece of evidence to show me that Christ did not in fact rise from the dead as attested to in the NT. You cannot prove undeniably that the Claims of Christianity are false. You can call this negative proof reasoning, or whatever, and talk about leprechauns all you want. You can accuse me of not applying logic consistently. But until you can give me something of substance other than your opinions, speculations, or conclusions of a scholar with presuppositions against Christian claims, there is nothing to debate. Agreed? Anyone? Anyone?

Sorry Goose. We mistook you for one of those Christians who claim that the Bible myths are, in fact, true not simply one of many differently likely possibilities. There are so many of them and in all probability, they are somewhat over represented in debate forums.
I will agree with you, if what you are saying is that the claims of Christianity, however unlikely, are not undeniably absolutely provably false. However, I part ways with you when you assert that there is reasonable doubt in favour of the Christian claims.

[Lotan]

The defence in a trial is only required to cause resonable doubt.

This idea of applying legal standards to what is essentially a scientific question is another example of the inconsistent application of logic. Legal standards are less stringent and begin with certain assumptions that scientific inquiries seek to avoid. Also, when the topic is such as the resurrection, an unique and seemingly impossible event, it becomes even more a matter of opinion as to how much doubt is "reasonable".

It is up to the offence/prosecution to provide an iron clad case.

This isn't a courtroom. The skeptic

You can call this negative proof reasoning, or whatever, and talk about leprechauns all you want.

Good, I will then. You might not believe in leprechauns, but if you do not you're being inconsistent. Can you provide an "iron clad case" against their existence? No. The same can be said for absolutely any claim no matter how ridiculous, including the resurrection of Jesus. Here are two claims...

"Leprechauns are two feet in height and usually wear the color of green such as a Leprechaun hat or coat, or maybe even both." - from here.

"Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish prophet who claimed to be the Christ prophesied in the Jewish Scriptures, was arrested, was judged a political criminal, and was crucified. Three days after His death and burial, some women who went to His tomb found the body gone. In subsequent weeks, His disciples claimed that God had raised Him from the dead and that He appeared to them various times before ascending into heaven." - from here.

Now, go ahead and disprove one of them. Take your pick. Unlike the resurrection there are eyewitness accounts of Leprechaun sightings. That should be enough to create a "reasonable doubt", don't you think? Isn't that the criterion that you support?

But until you can give me something of substance other than your opinions, speculations, or conclusions of a scholar with presuppositions against Christian claims, there is nothing to debate.

But you have been given those things. Here are two...

1. Dead people don't come back to life.
2. Sometimes people make up stories.

Neither of those statements is opinion, or speculation. They are based on a priori presuppositions though. That is, they are self evident. The next time you drop a penny, will it fall up? It's always a possibility that it might, but based on experience it's not likely. Arguing for the resurrection is the same as claiming that one time, the penny fell up! Since you don't consider this kind of presupposition substantive you should have no problem walking off a cliff.

If your belief in Jesus is simply a matter of faith, then you are correct; there is nothing to debate. It is only the claim that your belief is supported by logic and reason that requires a 'defense'.

[Goose]

I guess I'll assume there isn't any substantial contradicting evidence then.

I will agree with you, if what you are saying is that the claims of Christianity, however unlikely, are not undeniably absolutely provably false. However, I part ways with you when you assert that there is reasonable doubt in favour of the Christian claims.

I guess I'll have to settle for this McCulloch. We'll agree to disagree as they say? I know I'll never be able to convince fully some one that cannot use any element of faith. There always was and always will be an element of faith required for Christianity. I believe Christ new this. Perhaps that is why he said "blessed are those that believe yet have not seen."

Can I say one quick thing before I get my coat regarding ancient writings. It has been implied that Christians have abandoned all reason or logic in this thread when assessing the validity off their faith. We do use logic and apply it consistently to ancient writings. Here is what I mean. If you were to cite an ancient writing claiming something supernatural I would first ask. When the author originally put pen to paper was his intention to create a work of fiction for entertainment or artful purposes? If so, then any claims can be readily discarded. If the original intent was to create a document for the purpose of recording historical events (i.e. non-fiction) and there were supernatural claims, then I would want more evidence of course (Notice when you go to the book store, the Bible is not in the fiction section.) For example I would want to see supporting documentation to support the claim from other writers in or around the same time. The more the better. Careful scrutiny of the documents by a qualified professional to confirm their authenticity. Historical background information and supporting evidence would be helpful. You would do the same if a fossil was discovered would you not? So as to avoid an Archaeoraptor disaster, correct?

Anyway, I feel I'm labouring on this. It's been fun. Catch you guys on another thread hopefully.

[McCulloch]

There always was and always will be an element of faith required for Christianity. I believe Christ new this. Perhaps that is why he said "blessed are those that believe yet have not seen."

Please see Why is faith a virtue ?

We [Christians] do use logic and apply it consistently to ancient writings. Here is what I mean. If you were to cite an ancient writing claiming something supernatural I would first ask. When the author originally put pen to paper was his intention to create a work of fiction for entertainment or artful purposes?

Here, I believe that you are committing an anachronism. Ancient writers who seem to be attempting to record historical events often inserted supernatural elements.

Notice when you go to the book store, the Bible is not in the fiction section.

Non sequitur. Neither are the books on Scientology or poetry.

For example I would want to see supporting documentation to support the claim from other writers in or around the same time. The more the better. Careful scrutiny of the documents by a qualified professional to confirm their authenticity.

Without minimizing the need to establish authenticity, all I can say is that authenticity does not guarantee accuracy. Some of Paul's writings are agreed by most scholars to be authentically from the pen of Paul. Others, such as the second epistle to Timothy, have had their Pauline authorship seriously questioned. Either way, I am inclined to believe much about what he wrote regarding his traveling itinerary in the eastern Mediterranean and not inclined to believe what he wrote regarding his travels to various levels of heaven.

[Zorro1]

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".

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. That’s one of those logic things again. It’s very simple, if you don’t plan on committing the fallacy the guideline speaks against, then it doesn’t apply to you. As I have said before, each of the guidelines addresses a common fallacy. One example is given, many others could be given. Don’t commit the fallacy and you have nothing to worry about.

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?

Just because you don’t like some stupid thing a few from your camp have said, doesn’t make it a creation. As for the rest, yes, I agree. The point swings both ways. Any Christian that demands 100% certainty of an inductive argument has committed a categorical fallacy.

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.

What!!! You have been arguing that atheists never, ever insist on 100% certainty, and that I can’t prove that they do, and then you state that you are “sure that some do?” Do you realize how absurd you sound and how petty your previous posts sound after that admission?

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

Works for me.

This just gets more and more absurd. First, you insist that my account of an atheist asking for 100% proof is a creation, because atheists just don’t do that. Then you admit that some do ask for 100% certainty, then you, yourself, agree with an atheist asking for 100% certainty.

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.

Apparently neither you nor McCulloch bothered to read Goose’s post or even the part you quoted. Both of you ignored the request for affirmative evidence. You don’t accept things without affirmative evidence. But, I know you don’t want to bother with that part, because you have no idea what affirmative evidence consists of, nor do you have a method for processing it. Am I wrong? It should be easy to prove me wrong, just provide your method for determining sufficient evidence, both qualitative and quantitative.

So, let’s get to the point of guideline 1). Do you agree that any criteria used to determine if the resurrection occurred must be able to be met, at least in principle? All the rest of this is merely your avoidance of the point.

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!

Whately does exactly what Hume does: he sets all evidence on the given question outside the control set, then concludes that since there is no evidence for the matter in question in the control set, that it is irrational to believe the matter in question.

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?

Sure, I can show that it has been properly applied, unfortunately I don’t have the time to teach you the basics of logic, which has been your problem all along. The Whately paper is what is known in logic as a counter example. The one Whately uses is called Reductio ad Absurdum, a reduction to the absurd. It shows Hume’s error by demonstrating that the same principle, when applied to other areas brings about contradictory and absurd results, and is thus fallacious.

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.

That’s what makes the problem so laughable! You accept an argument that not only gets rid of the resurrection, but also gets rid of Napoleon, and the kicker is that the proof was made while Napoleon is living! Surely you have to see the humor in your position. Of course, it is only funny, because it is so obviously absurd, and irrational.

But let’s get back to the point of this example. Do you agree that any criterion that is used to determine the resurrection must be one that when applied to other events don’t bring about conclusions that conflict with known fact?

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.

As I said before, you need a course on logic. One of the main purposes of the rules of inductive and deductive logic is to eliminate the subjective. To say there is still bias in your conclusion, just means that you have not correctly applied the rules of logic.

So, you insist that some degree of personal bias is unavoidable. Let’s try this one:

1) If R then P
2) R
3) Therefore P (1,2, modus ponens)

Please show me the subjectivity and personal bias in that conclusion.

Oh, you say, but that is different, that is formal logic!

OK, let’s try something that deals with the real world:

E=MC[2]

Please show me the subjectivity and personal bias in that conclusion.

Oh, you say, but that has to do with math.

OK, let’s try a purely inductive conclusion, based solely on sense perception:

The earth has one moon.

Please show me the subjectivity and personal bias in that conclusion.

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?

Are you nuts? You said in the previous quote of yours that it was unavoidable. Not only did you say it, you tried to defend it. Which in and of its self is self stultifying.

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? lol

Laughing at one of the basic functions of logic, is probably not one of your best moves, but it is a consistent one. The basis for committing Special Pleading is subjective likes, dislikes and preferences. That’s why it’s a fallacy, it is not rational.

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?

I already answered this, but here it is one more time. The reason to accept the resurrection and not accept other events is the other events don’t have sufficient evidence given a objective, historical methodology and baseline, and the resurrection does.

In fact, I will go a step further: Given the evidence we have now, an objective methodology and baseline, the only rational conclusion is that Jesus rose form the dead. To achieve any other conclusion, you must commit a fallacy, or outright reject induction, or change the baseline because of personal bias.

At this point you have no methodology or baseline; and since all your conclusions are based on your mere opinion, you think that is how everyone does it. You are wrong, again.

Z

[Zorro1]

Wikipedia's definition is: Christian apologetics is the field of study concerned with the systematic defense of Christianity . You see that. I'm on the defence. Not the offence. The defence in a trial is only required to cause resonable doubt. It is up to the offence/prosecution to provide an iron clad case. So I stand by my post on page one firmly. I see no tangible or irrefutable piece of evidence to show me that Christ did not in fact rise from the dead as attested to in the NT. You cannot prove undeniably that the Claims of Christianty are false. You can call this negative proof reasoning, or whatever, and talk about leprechauns all you want. You can accuse me of not applying logic consistently. But until you can give me something of substance other than your opinions, speculations, or conclusions of a scholar with presuppositions against Christian claims, there is nothing to debate. Agreed? Anyone? Anyone?

I'm afraid you have it back to front. It is you making th positive claim that a dead person can be raised back to life. This goes against all evidence and observation. It is you who must provide the evidence.

What's that? You can't? can anyone? Anyone?

You need to read the posts in this thread concerning Hume's argument. You are making the same mistake as Hume.

BTW: the bolded text above is what is known as a 'straw man'. It is the device apologists resort to when they have no argument

Why do so many people on this forum think that anything they don't like is a straw man?

Here is an accurate definition of the staw man fallacy from wikipedia:

A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw-man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact misleading, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted.

As you can see, Goose did not commit this fallacy.

Z