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?

[McCulloch]

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

You caught me. I overstated my point.

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

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?

Yes.

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.

Sorry, I must have missed where you outlined the objective methodology that you're using.

[Goat]

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

Actually, the fallacy that Goose did was "Shifting the burden of proof".

Different fallacy.

[samuelbb7]

The statement is asserted that Biblical scholars no longer accept that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. That is only partially true. Some Biblical scholars those of the Historical Critical school which also reject the inspiratation of the bible say they were not eyewitness.

But most accept that Matthew and John were in fact eyewitnesses. Mark is speaking or writing for Peter who is an eyewitness and Luke collected eyewitness reports.

C.S. Lewis a Scholar in the Myths of History declared that the Bible is not myths.

The point that christians do not apply logic consistently is something I can agree with. But neither do nonchrisitans. The most consistent atheist I know of is the Amazing Randi. Whose real name I can never remember.

[Zorro1]

The statement is asserted that Biblical scholars no longer accept that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels. That is only partially true. Some Biblical scholars those of the Historical Critical school which also reject the inspiratation of the bible say they were not eyewitness.

But most accept that Matthew and John were in fact eyewitnesses. Mark is speaking or writing for Peter who is an eyewitness and Luke collected eyewitness reports.

C.S. Lewis a Scholar in the Myths of History declared that the Bible is not myths.

The point that christians do not apply logic consistently is something I can agree with. But neither do nonchrisitans. The most consistent atheist I know of is the Amazing Randi. Whose real name I can never remember.

I agree with your post. The next question is what would happen if the principles of inductive logic were consistently applied to the claims of the resurrection and the rest of ancient history?

Regards,

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

Actually, the fallacy that Goose did was "Shifting the burden of proof".

Different fallacy.

I agree with that.

Z

[Goose]

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

I'm back. It's so facinating I just had to jump back in.

I would accept your agrument if the tables were turned and I were on the offensive and trying to convert you. But I'm not, I don't care if you believe. You require me to provide the extra special evidence because you don't like the consequences of the outcome if I am right. That means you'll have no alternative but to become a Christian. Just as I have no alternative but to become an atheist if you could satisfactorily show me God doesn't exist. (not trying to start that debate BTW).

But this is argumentative on my part really.

So let me turn the tables for a moment. Let's put you in the position of having to convince me that I descended from apes. This is an incedible thing to believe. Apes. Really? Now the burden is on you to show me extra special evidence for this feat to have taken place. You have evidence - i.e. fossil records which are spotty and have time date discepensies of hundreds of thousnds of years. Not 50-70. And you have a theory - i.e the mechanism of evolution. You have bacteria that may or may not mutate. But you cannot convince me that an ape was my great great grandady beyond a shadow of a doubt. Show me the evidence that is so compelling I have no altertinative but to believe. After all this event is not rational is it, to think I came from an ape? I've never seen this before. There are no current living examples are there? So your proof had better be good. When you're finished with that. Please convince me I came from primordial soup. My rational thinking tells me no this isn't possible. Can you prove it absolutely? That is an incredible thing for me to believe. Gould himself said:

Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.

Surley this implies at least a slight element of faith to believe we came from apes. Please don't spout off the scientific process and refer me to talkorigins.com. Been there and bought the t-shirt. I need real proof I can touch, taste, see and hear myself. Please don't tell me Evolution is different because this is science.

My point here, is you will expect me to alter what I know to be real to today in order to believe a less than rational theory on what I would call speculative evidence. So how is the standard the same with Christianity? I should probably say I'm not trying to start the Evolution debate. Merely showing you the other side of the coin for the purposes of this thread.

[Goose]

oops

[Lotan]

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.

Particular to "the Atheist", whoever that may be.

As I have said before, each of the guidelines addresses a common fallacy.

Common to Christians as well.

Just because you don’t like some stupid thing a few from your camp have said, doesn’t make it a creation.

Except that we don't know who this person is, or what he may or may not have said. All we have is your side of the story; your creation.

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?”

Please show where I have argued "that atheists never, ever insist on 100% certainty" and then after you have failed at that, please explain why you find it necessary to misrepresent me. In fact I said just the opposite. It is you who is making the equation, '100% certainty'='irrefutable evidence', not me.

This just gets more and more absurd.

At least you got that right.

First, you insist that my account of an atheist asking for 100% proof is a creation, because atheists just don’t do that.

Wrong, I thought that was a creation because you gave no indication otherwise.

Then you admit that some do ask for 100% certainty, then you, yourself, agree with an atheist asking for 100% certainty.

For the third time (this post) you're putting words in my mouth. "Irrefutable evidence" does not equal "100% certainty" as far as I'm concerned.

Apparently neither you nor McCulloch bothered to read Goose’s post...

And twice now (this post) you have accused me of not reading opposing arguments. Do you feel that that is a productive tactic?

Both of you ignored the request for affirmative evidence.

"Affirmative evidence"...?

I have seen no irrefutable piece of evidence to tell me it did not happen.

This is a thread about 'logic' you know.

You don’t accept things without affirmative evidence.

Does anyone? Ever?

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.

You know a lot!

Am I wrong?

Let me guess...................yes?

It should be easy to prove me wrong, just provide your method for determining sufficient evidence, both qualitative and quantitative.

Still looking for proof of a negative claim, are you?

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.

Not sure, if I understand the question, but I imagine that the appropriate answer would be "Within reason".

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.

Yes, I read Whately. He could argue that he himself didn't exist. I seriously doubt that he is following Hume fairly.

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.

Of course! No wonder I'm an atheist! I can't even think straight!

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.

Too much of anything can be bad. Including skepticism. OK. I believe that Napoleon existed. I just don't believe that he rose from the dead.

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...

I do? Did you see me wearing a David Hume T-shirt or something?

...and the kicker is that the proof was made while Napoleon is living!

It's really funny when you put it that way.

Surely you have to see the humor in your position. Of course, it is only funny, because it is so obviously absurd, and irrational.

I must be just another dumb atheist I guess!

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?

Is it possible for you to be more specific?

As I said before, you need a course on logic.

Then why did you say it again?

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.

It means that someone hasn't. Bias occurs before the conclusion.

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.

Piece of cake...

1) If R then P
2) R
3) Therefore Q (but it only happened once, 2,000 yrs. ago!)

You should have read the whole article...

"The fact that the argument is valid cannot assure us that any of the statements in the argument are true; the validity of modus ponens tells us that the conclusion must be true if all the premises are true."

IOW, garbage in, garbage out.

E=MC[2]
Please show me the subjectivity and personal bias in that conclusion.

This is silly. The bias is not "in that conclusion". Besides, as a God-fearing Bible believer I know that the Almighty can (and does) violate the laws of physics anytime He gets a notion...

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

You said it for me.

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.

Easy. I'm blind. I don't believe you. I read a book (in braille) that says the earth has three moons.

Are you nuts?

No, but thank you so very much for asking.

You said in the previous quote of yours that it was unavoidable.

Maybe it is you who should "actually read" what others have written. I said that "Some degree of personal bias is unavoidable". I did not say that personal bias should be part of a rational argument. Please point out a completely rational human being and then I'll admit to error.

Not only did you say it, you tried to defend it. Which in and of its self is self stultifying.

Maybe if you pay better attention, you'll find yourself less stultified then. Or did you just assume that I was an idiot?

Laughing at one of the basic functions of logic, is probably not one of your best moves, but it is a consistent one.

Is it your view that assigning a motive to someone, based on your opinion of what they should 'like' or 'dislike' is a basic function of logic?

The basis for committing Special Pleading is subjective likes, dislikes and preferences.

That's nice, but you haven't shown in the first place that Basil's request was motivated by a 'dislike' of the resurrection. I think it might be likely due to the 'miraculous' nature of that event. If someone were to claim a resurrection occurred today, then I might want to see videotape as well. And you are omitting the possibility that Basil was just using hyperbole as a way of saying that he didn;'t think that the quality of the evidence to support the resurrection was sufficient.

That’s why it’s a fallacy, it is not rational.

That's why it's a tautology, it's redundant.

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.

According to Zorro1! Why not just admit you have nothing? Plenty of well qualified historians disagree with you. Why? 'Anti-supernatural presuppositions'?

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.

The "only" one eh?

To achieve any other conclusion, you must commit a fallacy, or outright reject induction, or change the baseline because of personal bias.

Obviously.

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.

Zorro, all these assertions are fascinating, and I'm sure that you believe them, but you have yet to prove anything, besides the fact that humans are, by nature, biased. Logic and reason are wonderful, but they will only lead to the right conclusion if one begins with the right premise. There are plenty of professional historians and Bible scholars (many of whom are Christians) who discount the miraculous elements in the gospels based on their expert analysis of the available evidence. Just because you charge them with commiting logical fallacies because of the conclusions that they arrive at does not make it so.

You are wrong, again.

That is your subjective opinion.

[melikio]

The point that christians do not apply logic consistently is something I can agree with. But neither do nonchrisitans. The most consistent atheist I know of is the Amazing Randi. Whose real name I can never remember.

Yeah, that is pretty much what I've learned by arguing/discussing with people on ALL sides of issues related to belief and unbelief.

People generally embrace what they can or want to; I've not met any special faith/logic "HEROES", who really live by only what they think/know is absolutely true or provable.

No, "Christians" nor "non-Christians" are necessarily more consistent than one another. I believe it is easier for an unbeliever to appear to be more credible overall, mainly because tangible things are much harder to argue with. But a believer is "justified" (in a way that's real to them) by their "faith".

The ONLY way I evetually found to justify my life as a Christian, was to make the most important parts of my "belief" tangible via LOVE itself. I have implied many times, that things which cannot be sensed or proven directly via the most common human senses, are nevertheless important to MANY human beings. And it is indeed difficult (for some) to allow others the "freedom" to express what they sense, when it comes to those not-so-real kinds of things. Still, it does little good to assume that those things which seem to exist on the "edges" of commonly-perceived reality, could be blatantly dismissed or denied those who somehow detect (or even imagine) they exist.

Honestly, I think the absolute BEST we can do as human beings is to learn, and to allow our personal views to be "tempered" (perhaps mitigated) by the views of others. Not that one's faith or worldview must be destroyed or necessarily transformed by anothers, but to understand and accept how those differences affect all of us as a whole.

So, no... no person (Christian or otherwise) applies logic so consitently (as a Vulcan from "Star Trek"); but it IS indeed LOGICAL to point out (especially in the most civil way/s possible) that any given person or postion may contain some form of inconsistency.

And given just how HUMAN we all tend to be (Christian, Muslim, Atheist...whatever...), it is certainly logical to expect that we'll have to "navigate" such inconsistencies both large and small. In my case, LOVE gives me a seriously-profund reason to do so; it has always been my hope that others would ultimately look into love as their reason for doing the same.

-Mel-

[McCulloch]

Let's put you in the position of having to convince me that I descended from apes. This is an incedible thing to believe. Apes. Really? Now the burden is on you to show me extra special evidence for this feat to have taken place. You have evidence - i.e. fossil records which are spotty and have time date discepensies of hundreds of thousnds of years. Not 50-70. And you have a theory - i.e the mechanism of evolution. You have bacteria that may or may not mutate. But you cannot convince me that an ape was my great great grandady beyond a shadow of a doubt. Show me the evidence that is so compelling I have no altertinative but to believe. After all this event is not rational is it, to think I came from an ape? I've never seen this before. There are no current living examples are there? So your proof had better be good. When you're finished with that. Please convince me I came from primordial soup. My rational thinking tells me no this isn't possible. Can you prove it absolutely? That is an incredible thing for me to believe.

Why is it that creationists keep missing what evolution teaches? Humans are not descended from apes.

Animals are multicellular living organisms that are not plants. Humans are animals.
Placental mammals are animals with backbones and warm blood who bear their young. Humans are placental mammals.
The primates are an order of mammals characterized by good eyesight and flexible hands and feet. Humans are primates.
Apes are primates with short or no tails. Humans are apes. Specifically, hairless beach apes.

All of this is true, regardless of whether you believe or disbelieve evolution.

Evolution teaches that animals which are close genetically are descended from a common ancestor.