Are McDowell Apologetics Valid or Lame?

[McCulloch]

I have listened to McDowell speak. He is among those Christian thinkers of the ages.

Then why does he need to resort to logical fallacies, dishonest arguments and selective use of evidence?

Two active members of this forum have expressed divergent views about the popular Christian apologist Josh McDowell. Is either one correct? Is Josh McDowell a great apologist for this age? Or is he a charlatan, pulling the wool over the eyes of the gullible?

I was a skeptic too until I took a good hard look at the claims of Jesus Christ. In college I met several students who challenged me to take a closer look, to study and examine the Christian faith.

I took the challenge, feeling certain I could prove Christianity to be false, a religion built on nice stories that couldn't stand up to the test of truth.

But as I dug deeper and deeper into the claims of Christianity, I was shocked. I found facts, not fiction. I found so much evidence that I could only come to one conclusion Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was crucified, He died, and He was resurrected on the third day.

JOSH.ORG: Apologetics

In short, I don't think this book [New Evidence That Demands a Verdict] accomplishes what it claims to do. And I can think of better books, written from an Evangelical perspective, which do accomplish those same aims. Even if I were an Evangelical, I'm afraid I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone.

'Evidence' That Demands a Refund (2001)
Lets see some evidence that demands a verdict on the validity of McDowell.

[youngborean]

I would say that he is a mediocre scholar and probably is guilty of a little arrogance due to his popularity. I find he really falls short on his interpretation of the OT, especially when he does it with such assurance. As far as evidence that demands a verdict goes, I never read it. But I read "The answer to 5 tough questions" and that was good and bad, like most attmepts at intellectualizing the Bible. I have always believed that the easiest thing to do is to point out what is wrong with someone's research, especially in Biblical studies. I would still maintain that the redactor and/or authors (depending on how you approach the Bible) both intended it to be read as a cohesive story first, not an intellectual essay.

[Cephus]

McDowell is a joke. Like many other apologists out there, he preaches to the ignorant choir and uses a lot of liberties in doing so. He has no problem distorting the facts, misrepresenting authorities and even outright lying if it makes the point that he's trying to make, and the people he's preaching to don't know any better so they swallow it hook, line and sinker.

Anyone with a clue considers his work to be ridiculous, all of it has been soundly refuted over the years. Maybe we need to rename his two most popular books "Evidence that Demands a Belly-Laugh".

[McCulloch]

McDowell ... has no problem distorting the facts, misrepresenting authorities and even outright lying if it makes the point that he's trying to make, and the people he's preaching to don't know any better so they swallow it hook, line and sinker.

A few of the more blatant examples would go a long way to making your point.

[1John2_26]

Infidels.org refutation? Let's ask David Duke about the supremecy of the races. Or Farrakhan for a opinion of race equality.

Here is the terrible and powerful McDowell in his own words:

Are you a skeptic?
by Josh McDowell

I was a skeptic too until I took a good hard look at the claims of Jesus Christ. In college I met several students who challenged me to take a closer look, to study and examine the Christian faith.

I took the challenge, feeling certain I could prove Christianity to be false, a religion built on nice stories that couldn't stand up to the test of truth.

But as I dug deeper and deeper into the claims of Christianity, I was shocked. I found facts, not fiction. I found so much evidence that I could only come to one conclusion Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He was crucified, He died, and He was resurrected on the third day.

Soon after this discovery, I accepted Jesus as my Savior and Lord. That was 39 years ago. My life has been completely changed because I have a personal relationship with Christ.

As a skeptic, you've probably heard this before, but don't just shrug it off I challenge you, as those students challenged me examine the claims of Jesus Christ for yourself. If there's even the slightest chance that He truly is the Son of God, shouldn't you be willing to find out?

To get started, why not order a copy of More Than a Carpenter. Or check out the Apologetics Resource Center.

[Grumpy]

1John2_26

To get started, why not order a copy of More Than a Carpenter. Or check out the Apologetics Resource Center.

Translation: To get started send me some money, sucker.

Grumpy 8)

[Lotan]

[1John2_26]

Since you are Lotan and not just any "skeptic," I'll throw out the infidels.org guys because there is no way that they can be taken as independent voices just weighing in . . . BUT,

The last guy I would ask: Are you giving credit to McDowell if you see he is "right" on anything? Is he 98% correct as a "scholar?" 51-percent? Or less than that?

The Gospels are historical and reflect things that actually happened. They are not written as a myth or allegorical.

[Lotan]

I'll throw out the infidels.org guys because there is no way that they can be taken as independent voices just weighing in . . .

Throw out whatever you like. You can make any sort of ad hominem argument against them that you like but you haven't shown that there is anything wrong with either their arguments or their conclusions.

The last guy I would ask: Are you giving credit to McDowell if you see he is "right" on anything? Is he 98% correct as a "scholar?" 51-percent? Or less than that?

If McDowell were honestly mistaken that would be one thing, but what matters is that he deliberately misleads. Of course he's going to try to be plausible.

The Gospels are historical and reflect things that actually happened. They are not written as a myth or allegorical.

It's a wonder then, that McDowell has to stoop to dishonesty to defend them.

[1John2_26]