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?

[Lotan]

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?

Right. Ancient historians had no qualms against including fantastic elements in their accounts.

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?

But Christians will argue that theirs is a special case...

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?

So, if we are to discard these so called "presuppositions to the supernatural" we can happily accept that Vespasian cured blindness, Honi controlled the weather, Romulus & Remus were raised by wolves, Alexander was descended from Heracles, etc, etc, etc...

[Zorro1]

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.

It would be nice if you knew what a strawman argument is. For that to be a strawman argument I would have had to assert it was your argument, I did not. I simply used it as a real life example that I encountered of the problem that could occur if this guideline is not followed. Do some atheists insist on 100% certainty? Yes, they do. 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.

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.

1819 Richard Whately (1787 - 1863). The title of Whately's pamphlet was “Historic Doubts relative to Napoleon Buonaparte.” Whately uses Hume’s cannon against miracles and applies them to Napoleon. 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. 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.
You can download a copy at: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/18087

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

The problem with Hume’s argument can be summed up as follows: Hume’s argument is not meant to lead us to historic accuracy. It is not meant to weigh evidence. Hume has as one of his premises that “uniform experience amounts to a proof,” but the uniformity of experience the question at hand. Hume does nothing more than beg the question. Hume’s argument sets any and all evidence for a miracle outside the control set, and then declares that since there is no evidence for miracles inside the control set, it is irrational to believe a miracle happened. Of course, you could set this up for anything you like, as Whately demonstrates.

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.

Interesting that you identify “objective” with “certainty.” You will notice that I do not. 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. 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. Do I really have to say that personal bias shouldn’t be part of a rational argument?

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 determine 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.

Once again, you need to figure out what a strawman is, you keep using that term incorrectly. You don’t believe that I read such a paper? Well, I did. I didn’t say every atheist believes that, just this one guy. I tried to google it, but it appears he has taken it down. You don’t believe it? I don’t care. It is easy to find other atheist/agnostics who are still demanding such things. Check out the first post from Basil on this forum:

http://www.apologetics.com/forums/showf ... =0&fpart=9

To be fair to Basil, he does recant and chocks it up to being “tongue-in-cheek.” But that is only after his fallacy his pointed out.

The point still stand: The fallacy of Special Pleading, should be avoided in any inductive methodology. Are you suggesting otherwise?

Z

[Goose]

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.

I know your game McCulloch

I understand the point you're trying to make. If you're going to use analogies let's keep them in context to the subject at hand shall we. Now if you were to say drop by my house with a 3 or 4 of your buddies and tell me that you guys just saw your dead neighbor walking around. I would tend to have more of an inclination to believe that unless I knew you to be of ill repute. Let's take this now 60-70 years into the future and we for some bizarre reason we can only now communicate by word of mouth and writing. If you and your 3 or 4 buddies were to then record your story by telling it to a third party. Would any of you have forgotten the details to such an incredible event by then? And let's assume that if you were found to be lieing you'd undergo severe consequences. Would that make the story untrue? Maybe far fetched, but not untrue. Agreed?

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?

Now, did Homer have any other witnesses write about these Gods? Are there any other credible ancient works, that at least some legitimate scholars would confirm as auhentic, that confirm what he alleges to have taken place? Is there at least one? Maybe Two or three other works or books from different authors. I'd even accept something written 50-100 years after Homer alleged them to have taken place. Is there? If you can show them to me, I might tend to believe Homer.

[Goat]

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.

I know your game McCulloch

I understand the point you're trying to make. If you're going to use analogies let's keep them in context to the subject at hand shall we. Now if you were to say drop by my house with a 3 or 4 of your buddies and tell me that you guys just saw your dead neighbor walking around. I would tend to have more of an inclination to believe that unless I knew you to be of ill repute. Let's take this now 60-70 years into the future and we for some bizarre reason we can only now communicate by word of mouth and writing. If you and your 3 or 4 buddies were to then record your story by telling it to a third party. Would have forgotten the details to such an incredible event by then? And let's assume that if you were found to be lieing you'd undergo severe consequences. Would that make the story untrue? Maybe far fetched, but not untrue. Agreed?

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?

Now, did Homer have any other witnesses write about these Gods? Are there any other credible ancient works, that at least some legitimate scholars would confirm as auhentic, that confirm what he alleges to have taken place? Is there at least one? Maybe Two or three other works or books from different authors. I'd even accept something written 50-100 years after Homer alleged them to have taken place. Is there? If you can show them to me, I might tend to believe Homer.

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

[Zorro1]

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.

MrWhy,

I believe that you are sincere in your response, but I think you fail to realize that this approach is merely a smoke screen. You are not the first to present it and it has been presented in similar terms by many before you. I say this only so you will understand that I am addressing the argument and that this is not a personal attack upon you.

The problem with the argument is that there is no objective way of quantifying and qualifying what "more evidence" would look like. Usually, what people mean by "more evidence," is more than is available; and when more evidence is found, then the ante goes up to more than that.

Let me prove my point with this friendly challenge: Tell us what would be considered sufficient evidence to affirm any ancient event and then tell us what objective methodology would one use to determine exactly what "more evidence" would be, both quantitatively and qualitatively?

There is also another problem with requesting "more evidence." The question is, why is more evidence needed, if you are not admitting that sufficient evidence exists?

If there is not sufficient evidence for an event like the resurrection, then you could just show, compared to other historical events, that the resurrection just doesn’t stand up. The only time that “more evidence” could be asked for is if we already agree that the evidence for the event was at least sufficient.

Regards,

Z

[Confused]

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.

MrWhy,

I believe that you are sincere in your response, but I think you fail to realize that this approach is merely a smoke screen. You are not the first to present it and it has been presented in similar terms by many before you. I say this only so you will understand that I am addressing the argument and that this is not a personal attack upon you.

The problem with the argument is that there is no objective way of quantifying and qualifying what "more evidence" would look like. Usually, what people mean by "more evidence," is more than is available; and when more evidence is found, then the ante goes up to more than that.

Let me prove my point with this friendly challenge: Tell us what would be considered sufficient evidence to affirm any ancient event and then tell us what objective methodology would one use to determine exactly what "more evidence" would be, both quantitatively and qualitatively?

There is also another problem with requesting "more evidence." The question is, why is more evidence needed, if you are not admitting that sufficient evidence exists?

If there is not sufficient evidence for an event like the resurrection, then you could just show, compared to other historical events, that the resurrection just doesn’t stand up. The only time that “more evidence” could be asked for is if we already agree that the evidence for the event was at least sufficient.

Regards,

Z

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

[Zorro1]

So, if we are to discard these so called "presuppositions to the supernatural" we can happily accept that Vespasian cured blindness, Honi controlled the weather, Romulus & Remus were raised by wolves, Alexander was descended from Heracles, etc, etc, etc...

Given an objective historical methodology, none of the events you mention have enough evidence to rise to sufficient evidence. So, you would rationally set them aside. Your problem will be that given that same methodology, the Resurrection of Jesus does rise above the line of sufficient evidence and leaves you no room to rationally reject it.

Z

[Zorro1]

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

[Goose]

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.

I know your game McCulloch

I understand the point you're trying to make. If you're going to use analogies let's keep them in context to the subject at hand shall we. Now if you were to say drop by my house with a 3 or 4 of your buddies and tell me that you guys just saw your dead neighbor walking around. I would tend to have more of an inclination to believe that unless I knew you to be of ill repute. Let's take this now 60-70 years into the future and we for some bizarre reason we can only now communicate by word of mouth and writing. If you and your 3 or 4 buddies were to then record your story by telling it to a third party. Would have forgotten the details to such an incredible event by then? And let's assume that if you were found to be lieing you'd undergo severe consequences. Would that make the story untrue? Maybe far fetched, but not untrue. Agreed?

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?

Now, did Homer have any other witnesses write about these Gods? Are there any other credible ancient works, that at least some legitimate scholars would confirm as auhentic, that confirm what he alleges to have taken place? Is there at least one? Maybe Two or three other works or books from different authors. I'd even accept something written 50-100 years after Homer alleged them to have taken place. Is there? If you can show them to me, I might tend to believe Homer.

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.

[Goose]

So, if we are to discard these so called "presuppositions to the supernatural" we can happily accept that Vespasian cured blindness, Honi controlled the weather, Romulus & Remus were raised by wolves, Alexander was descended from Heracles, etc, etc, etc...

Any other evidence to back up these accounts by chance? Any independent authors confirmaing any of these claims. Any other documented witnesses and there accounts? Would these seperate works successfully pass the scrutiny of at least a few legitimate scholars? If so I might be inclined to believe some trueth to it.