Are you smarter than the experts?

[historia]

I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right.

This is a phrase you'll never see me utter -- not just on this particular topic, but on all historical, legal, and scientific questions.

It's not that I haven't read differing views or encountered alternative theories on a wide array of issues -- in fact, quite the contrary. It's just that, outside of my own profession and area of expertise, I always defer to the consensus of experts.

My own research into the history and composition of the gospels, for example, is certain to be limited, and likely skewed by what I have chosen to read, compared to scholars who have devoted their entire careers to that topic.

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

[Goat]

I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right.

This is a phrase you'll never see me utter -- not just on this particular topic, but on all historical, legal, and scientific questions.

It's not that I haven't read differing views or encountered alternative theories on a wide array of issues -- in fact, quite the contrary. It's just that, outside of my own profession and area of expertise, I always defer to the consensus of experts.

My own research into the history and composition of the gospels, for example, is certain to be limited, and likely skewed by what I have chosen to read, compared to scholars who have devoted their entire careers to that topic.

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

Sorry, but . . . Argument from Authority is perhaps the most well known Logical Fallacy
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It also is the most misused one. There is nothing wrong to appeal to an expert, if , indeed they are actually an expert. For example, I would be more than happy to quote an infectious disease expert on what is currently understood about the state of a pandemic, particularly if they point to hard data that can support their viewpoint.

That is certainly more reliable than, for example, to push an untested cure by someone who has trouble completing a full sentence. The 'appeal to authority' is also what is known as 'an informal fallacy' . The authority might be wrong, but usually they have access to better training and data than the average person.

[TRANSPONDER]

I have little scholarly support for my take on the gospels, and yet I'm sure it's right.

This is a phrase you'll never see me utter -- not just on this particular topic, but on all historical, legal, and scientific questions.

It's not that I haven't read differing views or encountered alternative theories on a wide array of issues -- in fact, quite the contrary. It's just that, outside of my own profession and area of expertise, I always defer to the consensus of experts.

My own research into the history and composition of the gospels, for example, is certain to be limited, and likely skewed by what I have chosen to read, compared to scholars who have devoted their entire careers to that topic.

Question for debate:

1. Should we (as non-experts) always defer to the consensus of experts?

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

3. Under what conditions, if any, can we (as non-experts) claim to be "sure" we are right and the experts are wrong?

Sorry, but . . . Argument from Authority is perhaps the most well known Logical Fallacy
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

I know, I know it sounds like an overweening claim on my side but...I'm pretty sure. I've seen it work out again and again. Not all the details, but a great majority. Bear in mind that where I'm not sure, I'll say so.

Sorry, but . . . Argument from Authority is perhaps the most well known Logical Fallacy
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Did you actually read that web page?

It begins with: "It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus."

It is not a logical fallacy to cite or follow the consensus of experts.

I get the impression that fallacies are not used to make a case, but to undermine a case being made for a hypothesis without merit. take for example the slippery slop fallacy. We know that such claims can be true. Slippery slipes have often come about, but one cannot use a slippery slope prediction to claim that such a result WILL come about. It can't be assumed before it happens.

The way best practice seems to go with aythority is not to dismiss authority of experts in the field (not so much in other fields where there their opinions may be no better any layman's), and especially where they have a consensus view. But even that may be questioned if there is good reason. Science should be willing to reconsider with compelling evidence. This particularly applies to the consensus of religious opinion, as they are very much arguing 'within the box' one might say.

The bottom line that we cannot me pushed into accepting a consensus of opinion of religious believers, even if they are pretty expert in the matter. It is always valid to ask questions.

[1213]

...So it is the science - denier who has to prove that radioactive decay varies, ...

It may be constant, all though there is no long term observation to support that claim. That is not the problem. One of the real problems is that people don't know the conditions when for example a rock was formed, which is why it is possible that the result is not correct.

Here is one video about the problems:
https://creation.com/media-center/youtu ... tric-dates

[1213]

... But science has debunked genesis ...

How? I think that is a very silly belief.

By showing that the age of the earth is much older, that the sun existed before the earth, that the order of formation of the various things are in a different, that it wasn't 6 days of creation, there was no world wide flood during the existance of man.

"Science" makes that claim, but there is no proof for it to be true.

[Goat]

... But science has debunked genesis ...

How? I think that is a very silly belief.

By showing that the age of the earth is much older, that the sun existed before the earth, that the order of formation of the various things are in a different, that it wasn't 6 days of creation, there was no world wide flood during the existance of man.

"Science" makes that claim, but there is no proof for it to be true.

Why , that is where you are wrong. We have the green river vars, that record the sediment that built up over time, and the covers millions of years. In that time, there was not flood that interrupts those sediments. That is proof positive there was not world wide flood.

[historia]

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

The study of religion is a particular special case. So many of the scholars have theological bias that confirm their specific religion. For example, you will see lots and lots of theologians that are teachers in seminaries that have statement of faith that claim that the bible is inerrant, and refers to specific dogma that they follow. When you have a group that demands confirmation bias, then they can and should be challenged.

Do you think that holds with regard to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels (the point I asked about in the OP)? If so, what, in particular, do you think the consensus has wrong due to theological bias?

Also, theologians don't generally deal with topics like the history and composition of the gospels, as that is properly the domain of biblical scholars and historians of early Christianity.

[historia]

Two potential answers to your question on conditions:

1. The non-expert is genius and discovered something that no expert to date has done. (Again, the genius factor I raised from the get-go.)

Fair enough.

2. The non-expert has latched onto the discovery of another expert / genius that is not yet consensus view, but that provides sufficient backing to challenge the current consensus.

While I appreciate this idea in theory, I think most non-experts lack the ability to properly assess scenarios like this. And would, in practice, be more likely to fall into confirmation bias, latching onto individual experts who simply affirm the non-experts' prior assumptions.

[TRANSPONDER]

... But science has debunked genesis ...

How? I think that is a very silly belief.

By showing that the age of the earth is much older, that the sun existed before the earth, that the order of formation of the various things are in a different, that it wasn't 6 days of creation, there was no world wide flood during the existance of man.

"Science" makes that claim, but there is no proof for it to be true.

Then you are in denial of science and the evidence that it can produce to show that these things are true. You can refuse to accept the evidence, but don't ever appeal to science for support of anything you may claim,. because you don't believe science. And really, for those who credit science (at least as far as Genesis goes), why should they believe you?

...So it is the science - denier who has to prove that radioactive decay varies, ...

It may be constant, all though there is no long term observation to support that claim. That is not the problem. One of the real problems is that people don't know the conditions when for example a rock was formed, which is why it is possible that the result is not correct.

Here is one video about the problems:
https://creation.com/media-center/youtu ... tric-dates

I already explained that there are verifications, such as other dating methods that confirm the dates. I recall there are 'fossil' radiomentric dates that can be cross -checked though I'd have to look that one up (I may be confusing it with 'fossil record' of changes in rhe magnetic pole.

I have head much of Creationist attempt to argue flaws in radiometric dating This campaign faiuled and they know that it did. Yet it seems they are still pushing the same claims.

We could get deeper but really since you are denying the science, what is the point of arguing the science to you - even 'Creation -science'? You don't believe it.

P.s rather than just a cop -out I post a rebuttal to the cvreationist claim (Talk origins) Anyone denying Old Earth, radiometric dating and Geological stratification and fossil record would do well to research there before posting Creationist claims.
Claim CD010:
Radiometric dating gives unreliable results.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 24.
Response:
Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.

Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:

The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).

Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).

Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).

Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).

The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).

[Goat]

2. Does that include deferring to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels?

The study of religion is a particular special case. So many of the scholars have theological bias that confirm their specific religion. For example, you will see lots and lots of theologians that are teachers in seminaries that have statement of faith that claim that the bible is inerrant, and refers to specific dogma that they follow. When you have a group that demands confirmation bias, then they can and should be challenged.

Do you think that holds with regard to the consensus of scholars regarding the history and composition of the gospels (the point I asked about in the OP)? If so, what, in particular, do you think the consensus has wrong due to theological bias?

Also, theologians don't generally deal with topics like the history and composition of the gospels, as that is properly the domain of biblical scholars and historians of early Christianity.

If they follow the dogma that they are inerrant, their confirmation bias and dogma gets in the way of their being able to evaluate the gospels from a historical perspective. You can see that pattern in their evaluations. For example, the ones that push the gospels were written before 70 c.e. will invariable come from seminaries that push an inerrant bible. There will also be a very strong tendency to translate the bible to match their theological bent.

[TRANSPONDER]

I agree. I am aware of this ongoing claim that the gospels (or the original) predates the Jewish war. This is a tacit acceptance that the destruction of the temple is prediction not retropective prophecy. Any such scholarship that does that must be open to question as much as a scientific paper that includes "...and then God does a miracle..."

What is more is that errors and contradictions are known, and thus that these prophecies are not true prophecy is a valid proposition. Scholarship that proposes a view that follows theological claims in not Authority from my point of view.

I have mentioned before a very good book on Matthew that I read, and yet it fell down so very badly when trying to explain away Matthew's two donkeys. It pretty much blew any respect I had for the fellow as an Authority.

I am also at the stage (see the topic) where i cannot accept the 'Real Jesus' scholarship which seems to be based on a prima facie acceptance that the gospels are broadly reliable. I am very certain they are not. So here I stand and can do no other - any such 'consensus' even of skeptical Bible authorities cannot be an authority for me. Nor, I would argue, for anyone who is aware of how deep and continual the Gospel contradictions are.

which again I say astonishes me when I see how few of these are even mentioned. I often refer to how Luke changed the angelic message at the tomb so that the disciples are NOT told to go to Galilee. I have never seen this mentioned, let alone the implications. I have never seen the implications of John ripping his temple cleansing out of context, or Luke shifting his rejection at Nazareth or the anoinmting at bethany, not to mention the very obvious Lucan treatment of half of the Sermon material from Matth 6.16 on, let alone the implications.

Nor, though i have seen enough debates over the 2nd census apiologetic for the nativities, I never saw anyone pick up that Josephus answers the question of whether Quirinus had a previous stint as governor after Varus. If I can do this, it isn't rocket science. Why aren't the Authorities doing this? I can get why the Believers won't look but what about secular experts?

If they have already done this, I'd love to know, but too often it seems like a nice idea like jesus was a Rabbi with some proto socialist ideas...pick some Gospel passages (accepted as reliable) and Interpret them, and turn up at the book - signings.

Sorry, but why would i bother with authorities who don't bother with their material?