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?

[TRANSPONDER]

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

If we would do so, we would still believe in flat earth, geocentric system.

Well, no. The current consensus is that the earth is round and the sun is at the center of our solar system. So if you defer to the consensus of experts on those two issues, you would believe the same.

Expert consensus evolves over time. It's not the same now as it was 10 years ago, let alone 100.

Indeed, the scholarly consensus can, and does, change over time. Always deferring to the consensus of experts would mean that we, as non-experts, would also change our position over time to match the current consensus.

To be clear, what I'm asking here is: On what conditions should a non-expert disagree with the consensus of experts when it comes to the Bible?

If new facts are discovered, or underlying biases exposed, there may be sufficient conditions to disagree with the experts.

That makes sense for why an expert might disagree with the consensus of experts. But we, as non-experts, are not in a good position to discover new facts or expose potential biases that would be sufficient to overturn the consensus of experts. So this doesn't seem like a realistic scenario in which non-experts might rightly disagree with the consensus of experts.

Yes. I think the problem comes with Lay trust in Authority (what's in the books) and which Authority to trust. The consensus' for science gets into the books after debate, verification and repeat, with the door open for further evidence which so far, as said, has just added to and not overturned any major theory. Not even Newton's laws.

The consensus on the Bible however is more of a problem, because it is a battleground between faith and science in a way that science isn't (so long as Creationism doesn't get social power (1). You do not have Bible -believers dragging religion into science - it is always kept separate. But Bible study is different and the believers always drag belief into the consensus. Even skeptical critics seem to be under the belief that it is a broadly reliable record.
Even though they have doubt about a lot of it. But somehow it is never put together as a whole overview - and I've just done the Gospels and a bit of Paul and Acts. The Experts seem to just dicker about a few things and play the 'they disagree about how many angels so it's all wrong' card, and we need more than that. But I don't know of anyone else who has done it. I'd love it if someone had.

(1) if it does, I know what they will do. Genesis literalist religious Fundamentalism will be the sole Authority for Education, Society, Politics and Law and even Science will have to dance to its' tune. We know they will do this as they have said so. Remember this when you vote in the midterms.

[1213]

... But science has debunked genesis ...

How? I think that is a very silly belief.

[TRANSPONDER]

... But science has debunked genesis ...

How? I think that is a very silly belief.

Everything was not made in 6 days, the sun was not made after there was morning and evening and plants did not appear before living creatures in the sea. Not according to the evidence. The dry land did not appear after waters had been drawn together. Rather water appeared on the dry land and formed oceans. We haven't even got onto the dubious (morally and evidentially) story of the flood. And if you want a 'silly belief' the Eden scenario takes some beating.

[1213]

...
Everything was not made in 6 days, the sun was not made after there was morning and evening and plants did not appear before living creatures in the sea. Not according to the evidence....

Please show the evidence.

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Everything was not made in 6 days, the sun was not made after there was morning and evening and plants did not appear before living creatures in the sea. Not according to the evidence....

Please show the evidence.

The fossil evidence in sequential; dated strata (several radiometric methods) shows first rocks and then, as the earth cooled, rain precipitated out of the atmosphere and formed oceans.
Life formed in the Oceans, and when plants had appeared on land, insects and amphibians moved onto it. There were fish (according to the fossils) long before there was any plant life on land

As to the sun, from what we know of astronomy the sun was the reason we had and have morning and evening. You do not get light and dark, morning and evening before there is the sun made. You may deny the science (good luck with that) or you may make up excuses (e.g the cloud cover apologetic) but you cannot say that there is no evidence that the Bible as it reads is correct according to the evidence.

I could probably find a video or two explaining all this and frankly you could have researched it. Whether you accept it or not you ought at least to know what the evidence actually is.

[1213]

The fossil evidence in sequential; dated strata (several radiometric methods) shows first rocks and then, as the earth cooled, rain precipitated out of the atmosphere and formed oceans.
Life formed in the Oceans, and when plants had appeared on land, insects and amphibians moved onto it. There were fish (according to the fossils) long before there was any plant life on land

Ok, I have not seen talking fossils. And I think radiometric dating is not trustworthy, because they are too much based on certain assumptions, which seem to be biased for to prove evolution theory. And in any case, if there would be that order and time scale, it could be because of many reasons. I think it is interesting how easily people believe the evolution theory.

As to the sun, from what we know of astronomy the sun was the reason we had and have morning and evening. You do not get light and dark, morning and evening before there is the sun made....

Yes, now we have morning and evening because of the sun, but I think there is no intelligent reason to think no other light forms to make morning and evening exists, or never could have existed.

[Jose Fly]

The fossil evidence in sequential; dated strata (several radiometric methods) shows first rocks and then, as the earth cooled, rain precipitated out of the atmosphere and formed oceans.
Life formed in the Oceans, and when plants had appeared on land, insects and amphibians moved onto it. There were fish (according to the fossils) long before there was any plant life on land

Ok, I have not seen talking fossils. And I think radiometric dating is not trustworthy, because they are too much based on certain assumptions, which seem to be biased for to prove evolution theory. And in any case, if there would be that order and time scale, it could be because of many reasons. I think it is interesting how easily people believe the evolution theory.

As to the sun, from what we know of astronomy the sun was the reason we had and have morning and evening. You do not get light and dark, morning and evening before there is the sun made....

Yes, now we have morning and evening because of the sun, but I think there is no intelligent reason to think no other light forms to make morning and evening exists, or never could have existed.

This encapsulates the evolution/creationism debate pretty well. The science advocate describes some of the data and the creationist responds by basically saying "I don't agree".

The more I step back into these "debates" (scare quotes because they're hardly actual debates) the more I appreciate how science and religion are completely different worlds with different rules and expectations, which in turn affects how each side approaches the "debate".

[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?

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.

[brunumb]

And I think radiometric dating is not trustworthy, because they are too much based on certain assumptions, which seem to be biased for to prove evolution theory.

Can you demonstrate that what you think about radiometric dating is actually true, or are you just brushing aside what would be inconvenient for your beliefs?

[oldbadger]

Question for debate:

I did read your whole OP, but these were your questions:-

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

What experts?

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

Which scholars in particular? Is there one which you follow more closely, or trust more?

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

Your question imagines that we'll always have a differing opinion to 'the experts', but my answer is:-
When we know the answer about something....?