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]

Lets see some evidence that demands a verdict on the validity of McDowell.

OK. Here's a popular one...

He is either a liar, a lunatic, or the Lord. You must make a choice.

Anyone with the slightest understanding of critical thinking can see that this argument (lifted from C.S. Lewis) is flawed. The choices are artificially limited to three (later four, I think). McDowell knocks down two strawmen and the one that remains 'must be' the answer. It's not his conclusions here that are so troubling, but the fact that he chooses to advance an argument that has been shown to be spurious. This is the mark of a cheap salesman, not a great 'thinker'.

Here's another one that I find especially annoying...

It is quite clear that all of the Gospels relate their portraits of Jesus differently. This is what we should expect. No four witnesses (or news reporters), all of whom witness a series of events, will write them up in exactly the same way, detail for detail. If they did, there would be obvious collusion

McDowell would like to have us believe that the gospels represent four independent versions of events from Jesus' life. Leaving aside gJohn, the synoptics gospels show obvious literary parallels, which is exactly NOT what we would expect from separate eyewitnesses. From Bible.org...
"The Literary Interdependence of the Synoptic Gospels
It is quite impossible to hold that the three synoptic gospels were completely independent from each other. In the least, they had to have shared a common oral tradition. But the vast bulk of NT scholars today would argue for much more than that.3 There are four crucial arguments which virtually prove literary interdependence."
They are...
"1. Agreement in Wording
2. Agreement in Order
3. Agreement in Parenthetical Material
4. Luke’s Preface"
So McDowell's conclusion, in this case is drawn not from the evidence, but in spite of the evidence, on the rationale that "This is what we should expect."

These are only two small examples of McDowell's shoddy evidenciary standards. It's not enough to cry about the alleged bias of his critics. Many of his apologetic arguments can be shown to be dishonest on the basis of objective evidence. This doesn't stop him from repeating these same arguments or ignoring his critics though. Clearly McDowell has an agenda to promote Christianity that supercedes any consideration of facts.

There are too many critiques of McDowell's methods of argumentation to list them all, but here are a few of the better ones...
The Jury Is In
The Ruling on McDowell's "Evidence"
Jeffery Jay Lowder (editor)
A dozen essays that pretty much tear McDowell's arguments to shreds.

The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell
Gordon Stein, Ph.D.
"...a fine example of McDowell's basic dishonesty with the evidence..."

A Verdict on Josh McDowell
Gordon B. Hazen
"...much of what McDowell presents is untrustworthy, misleading or simply incorrect."

[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]

1John2_26 wrote:
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 New Testament IS a historical document. Comprised of thousands of "historical documents."

The infidels zealots have the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" platform for their railings and rantings. "Scholars" were once convinced that Caiaphas and Pilate were made up figures of history until the turn of the archeaological spade.

I started this new thread by someone quoting my assertion that McDowell ranks among the great Christian thinkers of the ages. I went and heard the man on two occasions. I have been to college and of course endured his adversaries time and again. I click on infidels.org often. (No porn so it's OK). Their views can be discarded like going to Klan supporting sites to get views on race relations.

1John2_26 wrote:
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.

I think that "some" atheists are simply misguided self-gratifying do-gooders that only hear what they want to hear. I do not think they are dishonest. There is no reason to think or even assert McDowell is dishonest. History backs his position on evidence that demands a verdict. It is certainly presented IN the Gospels, that many will reject the evidence.

1John2_26 wrote:
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.

Questioning his honesty is ad hominem attack is it not? Even "liberal scholars" believe Jesus existed.

Anyone can be a "scholar" by the way.

Here is a piece on equip.org. ugh, I know, I know, "another Christian apologetic group."

Perspective: CP1001

Reliability of the bible manuscripts

Non-Christians, (skeptics like New Agers or Mormons) claim that in the process of copying Scripture the text of the Bible was corrupted. Is this really true?

Suppose you wrote an essay and asked five friends to copy it. Each of them in turn asked five more friends to do the same — kind of like a chain letter. By the fifth “generation,” you would have approximately four thousand copies. Now, obviously, in the process, some people are going to make some copying errors. The first five people to copy it would make mistakes, and then most of the people who copy from them will make some more mistakes. Eventually you’d have thousands of copies and all of them flawed.

Sounds pretty bad, right? But hold on. Your five friends might make mistakes, but they wouldn’t all make the same mistakes. If you compared all of the copies, you would find that one group contained the same mistake while the other four did not — which of course, would make it easy to tell the copies from the original. Not only that, but most of the mistakes would be obvious — things like misspelled words or words that were accidentally omitted. Anyone looking at all four thousand copies would have no trouble figuring out which was the original.

That’s essentially the same situation with the Bible. We’ve got thousands of copies of the Bible in its original language, and scholars who have studied them have been able to classify them into groups and in most cases determine what the original documents actually said. The few cases which are still debated by scholars really don’t affect the basic message of the Bible at all.

In fact, interestingly enough when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered at Qumran, they predated the earliest extant text — the Masoretic text by almost one thousand years — yet in spite of this vast span of time, there was no substantive difference at all…..In fact, in looking at Isaiah 53 there were only 17 changes between the Masoretic text and those found at Qumran — 10 involved spelling, 4 style and 3 involved the Hebrew letters for the word light in verse 11. However, none of these differences were substantive — God has indeed preserved His Word.