927 thoughts on “What Makes Something Right or Wrong?”
“So none of this is certain, but the gospels still stand as reasonable history, though not without their problems.”
I would like to see ONE non-Christian scholar or historian who believes that it is “reasonable” to believe any of the following:
1. Virgins give birth to babies.
2. Angels deliver birth announcements.
3. Magic stars hover over stables.
4. The blind can be healed with a mixture of mud and spit.
5. Water can be turned into wine.
6. Humans can walk on water.
7. Five loaves of bread and two fish can feed five thousand people.
8. Demons can take possession of two thousand pigs, making them run into a lake to drown.
9. Humans can make fig trees wither by cursing them.
10. Dead people can be reanimated by a traveling peasant preacher.
11. A devil has the power to fly or teleport a man to the top of a temple.
12. Dead ancient sages can be brought back from the dead in a Transfiguration moment.
13. Darkness can occur in the middle of the day for three hours over all the earth.
14. Dead people can come out of their graves to roam the streets.
15. Angels move heavy stones.
16. Dead prophets rise from the dead.
17. Dead prophets eat broiled fish lunches.
18. Dead prophets levitate into outer space.
“…with four gospels compiled, it is believed, from maybe 6 independent sources, we have better ways of checking than for most history. But this is a specialist question, and one we should rely on the scholars for. And they say that, despite the difficulties, we can be sure of much about the life and teachings of Jesus.”
This sounds a lot to me like the following:
“You see, dear friend, you do not have the expertise, the depth of knowledge, to understand the intricacies of fine cloth. Only someone who has studied cloth for years and has a degree in textiles can see that this cloth is NOT invisible, but the most exquisite cloth ever spun.
“My belief in Jesus doesn’t require the Bible to be inspired, I just accept what the historians say it is. Like many christians these days, for me belief in Jesus comes first, belief in and about the Bible follows as a consequence.”
But belief in Jesus as God requires the Resurrection, and UnkleE has failed to provide evidence for this alleged historical event other than assumptions, hearsay, and the “expert” opinions of graduates from Christian Bible colleges in Dallas, Texas and Lynchburg, Virginia.
I see your point, but I have more than one purpose for publishing his posts. Here they are:
1. To demonstrate to my readers that fundamentalist and even conservative/orthodox Christianity is a cult: They lure you in with “Jesus loves you so much” but if that angle fails, they then threaten you with eternal damnation in a boiling pit of fire.
2. The very slim possibility that Pastor Bill will suddenly see a defect in his inerrant belief system, stopping him from indoctrinating others with this cult nonsense. He recently sent me an email telling me about how he had just led (converted) an eight year old girl to Jesus. It sent chills down my spine thinking about the indoctrination and fear that will be instilled into that small child.
3. It reinforces in my mind that the belief system that was taught to me since I could walk and talk, that instilled terror in my young brain, is complete nonsense.
Barry: Yes, I too find it amazing, now that I have deconverted, that educated, 21st century people can be convinced that one equals three and three equals one.
Imagine what Christians would say if any other religion tried to pull this nonsense. So let’s start a new religion:
The God, Dagnon, consists of three distinct persons: Dagnon 1, Dagnon 2, and Dagnon 3. While Dagnon 2 was being crucified, Dagnon 1 was looking down from outer space. When Dagnon 2 went to outer space to sit at the right hand of Dagnon 1, he sent Dagnon 3 to take his place on earth.
But there is only one Dagnon.
What???
It’s nonsense. Pure nonsense. It’s not surprising that the Church fooled uneducated, ignorant, superstitious peasants in the first few centuries AD, but educated people today need to call it for what it is: Bullshit.
I just re-read the latest post from Pastor Bill (and corrected a few typos…it drives me nuts to see typos in my posts) and I don’t see that I was impolite to him. But maybe I’m just an ass and don’t know it. 🙂
Do you have a blog? I’d like to know more about your position on Christianity.
I read through the exchange between Gary and the Pastor and I don’t think Gary is being ‘less polite’. I’d use the words, ‘succinct’ and ‘direct’, myself. 🙂 It seems to me that if the Pastor is ‘leading an 8-yr-old’ to Jesus and trumpeting that kind of thing as if it’s a conquest, he deserves to be dealt with exactly the way Gary is doing it.
I don’t know about you, Powell, but the church I’ve attended for the last 38 years never talked about Hell; it wasn’t part of the ‘package’ and in fact, I’ve heard ministers say, “We don’t believe in scaring people into doing good”. So I have to ask myself, “Who DOES that?” It seems to me that there’s only one answer – people who have a lot to lose. In the Pastor’s case, he’s got to rely on scaring people and I find it repulsive.
“But this is a specialist question, and one we should rely on the scholars for.” – He’s inordinately fond of referring back to his cherry-picked “authorities,” it’s one of his trademarks.
I have been thinking overnight that you may have chosen a methodology here perhaps without considering alternatives. It seems to me that, because of your background, you think that God “should” operate in certain ways, and therefore that the Bible “should” have certain characteristics – e.g. to be close to perfect, have minimal human imperfections, or whatever. On this basis you judge it to fail the test, and so you cannot believe in God or Jesus. perhaps I am over-simlifying, but that seems to me to be your basic logic.
May I suggest an alternate methodology?
My interest is in determining if Jesus is truly worth believing in and following. We know about Jesus from the NT, so I ask what we can know about Jesus. The experts tell me we can know quite a bit, with quite a bit more doubtful. Based on what we can know historically, I ask whether I believe this Jesus was telling the truth or not. That is a very subjective decision, as is any decision regarding trust, but it is based on the best evidence and the best expert opinion we can get. I make the choice that I believe I can trust him. Therefore I trust him when he treats his scriptures as worthy of respect though not without criticism and updating, and promise the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth – not a book, but his Spirit, who inspired the book and interprets it to us if we allow him to. This methodology has the advantage of not making assumptions about the Bible at the start that prejudice the outcome. If you adopted it, it wouldn’t necessarily man you’d change your conclusions or belief, but it would mean (I believe) your conclusions ad belief would be on a more reasonable foundation.
UnkleE has repeatedly argued that the majority of scholars believe that the central claims of the Gospels represent historical fact, and, that we skeptics are being foolish and naive to question these experts’ opinion. He has also said that since Christian NT scholar Gary Habermas’ study shows that 75% of scholars believe that the empty tomb is historical fact, we skeptics are foolish to question the opinion of these scholars.
I have always felt that UnkleE was using poor logic in making these claims, but I couldn’t find the name of the particular fallacious logic that he was using. I found it today. Read below:
The Argumentum Ad Populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.
There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.
This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. *****When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority*****; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one’s community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).
The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other.
I wonder if unklee would forgo his scholars for a few moments and actually tell us which Jesus he is talking about?
The Jesus of the nativity? Hmm. E. P. Sanders describes this as: “the clearest cases of invention are in the birth narratives” in The Historical Figure of Jesus?
or ….
“The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never had any existence.” as Albert Schweitzer wrote in The Quest of the Historical Jesus?
Come on unklee, let’s hear from you not your darn experts; which Jesus do you wish for us to acknowledge existed?
Which one are you arguing for?
Imagine that 75% of the world’s historians come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith really did receive a visit from a celestial being. (25% of experts say that such a claim is unverifiable, but as it is a supernatural claim, it defies the laws of nature and is therefore highly unlikely to have occurred.) Would you as an educated person living in the 21st century drop your disbelief in Joseph Smith’s angel tale simply because 75% of experts say you should??
I doubt it.
When a group of experts, even if they are a majority, tells you something that is outrageously extraordinary…(or in plain French: out-of-this-frickin’-world bizarre)…such as the reanimation of dead bodies, DON’T take their word for it, just because they are “experts”. If 25% of experts in the field say that the majority is biased and off their rockers—watch out! The majority of experts has been wrong many times in history.
Hey, there are 11 signed witnesses to testify that Smith received these plates from Archangel Gabriel. That’s far better ‘evidence’ than the second and third hand accounts for some biblical guy named Jesus. UnkleE with his great respect for evidence must be a Mormon, eh?
UnkleE I agree there are alternative approaches to understanding the Bible. I know people who are quite comfortable with a more liberal/human interpretation. I just can’t get it to work for me.
We first discussed some of these issues in February 2015 on the Aspire to Truth blog. If it was just the Bible inspiration I might somehow have found a way to cope, but it was the whole package I found unravelling. The reality of the Christian life seemed so different from what it was meant to be. But the most critical issue for me was studying Christina history, it just all screamed out ‘human’ not ‘divine’ to me.
I could never understand how Islam was so successful, how non Christian groups like Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah Witnesses were so successful. To me it made no sense as they were fighting against God. But once I understood that none of the religions had a supreme deity on their side it suddenly all made sense. It could all be explained by human factors.
In 2013 I studied a unit in Christian Theology at Seminary. I was awarded a distinction in that unit. Yet I could honestly say I was more perplexed about the Trinity after I completed the unit, than before I started.
Actually part of my cognitive Dissonance was coming to appreciate how on so many key theological doctrines that there were differing views, most of which could be supported by Scripture. Some of the differences were quite fundamental, such as between Calvinism and Arminiunism.
But some would say that only with the Holy Spirit can one properly understand the Scriptures. This seemed attractive as an argument on the surface, until one came to see that godly people seemed to be given different interpretations by the same ‘Holy Spirit’.
Last year I read A book on the Evangelical Awakening of the 18th century. I was struck how John Wesley and George Whitefield, two of the great heroes of Christian history, started out as the closest friends and eventually had a major falling out over their different theological interpretations. Wesley was an adherent to Arminiunism and Whitefield to Calvinism.
One of the favourite Christian hymns of the ear, Rock of Ages, was written by an Calvinist as challenge to the Arminium views.
Hi Peter, I can understand that. I was just sharing how I see things. You can only go with what you see as the truth. I am of course sorry about where you are currently, but we are all on a journey. Best wishes.
If only 75% of the world’s foremost historians believed that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, would our history books state that he did as a historical fact? If only 75% of historians believed that Alexander the Great captured the city of Tyre, would our history books state that he did as a historical fact? If only 75% of historians believed Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem, would our history books state that he did as a historical fact?
In other words, if 25% of the world’s foremost historians did NOT believe that the above alleged events occurred, would our history books list these events as historical facts, or, would they list them as ALLEGED historical events?
I’m not an historian, so I cannot say for sure, but I will bet that they would not list these events as historical facts, even though the majority of historians believe that they are. I would bet that the above events would be listed as follows: “the majority of historians believe that such and such event did occur, but one quarter of historians do not. Therefore the historicity of this alleged event must be seen in terms of possibilities or probabilities, but it cannot be considered an historical fact.
I would bet that the premier universities in this country would never use a college history text book that makes claims of historical “fact” for alleged events about which 25% of scholars deny or even doubt their historicity.
I believe that it is disingenuous for UnkleE to continue to claim that the Gospels and the empty tomb are historical “FACTS”, based on the opinion of 75% of experts.
I was doing some research the other night, and came up with something I’d like to run past anyone who might have an answer to share.
If I’ve made an error anywhere, I would honestly appreciate it if someone could point it out to to me, as I may be too near the trees to see the forest.
Here goes:
From what I’ve been able to determine, the Old Testament prophet, Micah, may have actually quilled his own 3-page pamphlet, and the prophet, Zechariah, may have written the first eight chapters of his book, while the last six were written by an unknown author.
In the NT, Paul, whoever that actually was, is accepted to have written the following letters attributed to him:
• The Epistle to the Romans
• 1st Corinthians
• 2nd Corinthians
• Galatians
• Philippians
• 1st Thessalonians
• Philemon
Other than that, the entire 66 books of the KJV Bible were written anonymously. If anyone has any information to the contrary, I’d be very interested in hearing it, whether from realist or theist.
Peter, so then it all boils down to the childish argument, “I am better than you are!” The logical position, should there be a deity, is that no one person or group (at least in this day and age) has a monopoly on the divine. Yet, this is precisely the problem when it comes to religion. One group must always be more special than the other, and therefore, know the mind of the divine better than any other earthly source.
Arch, as far as I am aware, you would be correct – though I think you may have left out Isaiah. Unless you are a traditionalist, it is believed through academic study, that a number of the books were written pseudonymously. Traditionalists on the other hand believe Moses wrote Genesis through Deuteronomy, Paul wrote all the Epistles, the Disciples wrote the Gospels – with John also penning Revelation.This is as far as my knowledge takes me.
Finding Truth 
“So none of this is certain, but the gospels still stand as reasonable history, though not without their problems.”
I would like to see ONE non-Christian scholar or historian who believes that it is “reasonable” to believe any of the following:
1. Virgins give birth to babies.
2. Angels deliver birth announcements.
3. Magic stars hover over stables.
4. The blind can be healed with a mixture of mud and spit.
5. Water can be turned into wine.
6. Humans can walk on water.
7. Five loaves of bread and two fish can feed five thousand people.
8. Demons can take possession of two thousand pigs, making them run into a lake to drown.
9. Humans can make fig trees wither by cursing them.
10. Dead people can be reanimated by a traveling peasant preacher.
11. A devil has the power to fly or teleport a man to the top of a temple.
12. Dead ancient sages can be brought back from the dead in a Transfiguration moment.
13. Darkness can occur in the middle of the day for three hours over all the earth.
14. Dead people can come out of their graves to roam the streets.
15. Angels move heavy stones.
16. Dead prophets rise from the dead.
17. Dead prophets eat broiled fish lunches.
18. Dead prophets levitate into outer space.
Yep, all that is “reasonable”, isn’t it, folks?
LikeLiked by 2 people
“…with four gospels compiled, it is believed, from maybe 6 independent sources, we have better ways of checking than for most history. But this is a specialist question, and one we should rely on the scholars for. And they say that, despite the difficulties, we can be sure of much about the life and teachings of Jesus.”
This sounds a lot to me like the following:
“You see, dear friend, you do not have the expertise, the depth of knowledge, to understand the intricacies of fine cloth. Only someone who has studied cloth for years and has a degree in textiles can see that this cloth is NOT invisible, but the most exquisite cloth ever spun.
Trust the authorities on this.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
“My belief in Jesus doesn’t require the Bible to be inspired, I just accept what the historians say it is. Like many christians these days, for me belief in Jesus comes first, belief in and about the Bible follows as a consequence.”
But belief in Jesus as God requires the Resurrection, and UnkleE has failed to provide evidence for this alleged historical event other than assumptions, hearsay, and the “expert” opinions of graduates from Christian Bible colleges in Dallas, Texas and Lynchburg, Virginia.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Powell:
I see your point, but I have more than one purpose for publishing his posts. Here they are:
1. To demonstrate to my readers that fundamentalist and even conservative/orthodox Christianity is a cult: They lure you in with “Jesus loves you so much” but if that angle fails, they then threaten you with eternal damnation in a boiling pit of fire.
2. The very slim possibility that Pastor Bill will suddenly see a defect in his inerrant belief system, stopping him from indoctrinating others with this cult nonsense. He recently sent me an email telling me about how he had just led (converted) an eight year old girl to Jesus. It sent chills down my spine thinking about the indoctrination and fear that will be instilled into that small child.
3. It reinforces in my mind that the belief system that was taught to me since I could walk and talk, that instilled terror in my young brain, is complete nonsense.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Barry: Yes, I too find it amazing, now that I have deconverted, that educated, 21st century people can be convinced that one equals three and three equals one.
Imagine what Christians would say if any other religion tried to pull this nonsense. So let’s start a new religion:
The God, Dagnon, consists of three distinct persons: Dagnon 1, Dagnon 2, and Dagnon 3. While Dagnon 2 was being crucified, Dagnon 1 was looking down from outer space. When Dagnon 2 went to outer space to sit at the right hand of Dagnon 1, he sent Dagnon 3 to take his place on earth.
But there is only one Dagnon.
What???
It’s nonsense. Pure nonsense. It’s not surprising that the Church fooled uneducated, ignorant, superstitious peasants in the first few centuries AD, but educated people today need to call it for what it is: Bullshit.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Powell,
I just re-read the latest post from Pastor Bill (and corrected a few typos…it drives me nuts to see typos in my posts) and I don’t see that I was impolite to him. But maybe I’m just an ass and don’t know it. 🙂
Do you have a blog? I’d like to know more about your position on Christianity.
LikeLike
Hi Powell,
I read through the exchange between Gary and the Pastor and I don’t think Gary is being ‘less polite’. I’d use the words, ‘succinct’ and ‘direct’, myself. 🙂 It seems to me that if the Pastor is ‘leading an 8-yr-old’ to Jesus and trumpeting that kind of thing as if it’s a conquest, he deserves to be dealt with exactly the way Gary is doing it.
I don’t know about you, Powell, but the church I’ve attended for the last 38 years never talked about Hell; it wasn’t part of the ‘package’ and in fact, I’ve heard ministers say, “We don’t believe in scaring people into doing good”. So I have to ask myself, “Who DOES that?” It seems to me that there’s only one answer – people who have a lot to lose. In the Pastor’s case, he’s got to rely on scaring people and I find it repulsive.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“…never liked to see civil people melting down a la Crown.” – Really?! Call me easily entertained, but such Chernobyls are the highlight of my day!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“You don’t have to understand the trinity, you just need to accept.” – Sure sounds a lot like, “Just shut up and go along with the program!”
PS: I told you you’d like it over here!
LikeLiked by 2 people
“But this is a specialist question, and one we should rely on the scholars for.” – He’s inordinately fond of referring back to his cherry-picked “authorities,” it’s one of his trademarks.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Peter,
I have been thinking overnight that you may have chosen a methodology here perhaps without considering alternatives. It seems to me that, because of your background, you think that God “should” operate in certain ways, and therefore that the Bible “should” have certain characteristics – e.g. to be close to perfect, have minimal human imperfections, or whatever. On this basis you judge it to fail the test, and so you cannot believe in God or Jesus. perhaps I am over-simlifying, but that seems to me to be your basic logic.
May I suggest an alternate methodology?
My interest is in determining if Jesus is truly worth believing in and following. We know about Jesus from the NT, so I ask what we can know about Jesus. The experts tell me we can know quite a bit, with quite a bit more doubtful. Based on what we can know historically, I ask whether I believe this Jesus was telling the truth or not. That is a very subjective decision, as is any decision regarding trust, but it is based on the best evidence and the best expert opinion we can get. I make the choice that I believe I can trust him. Therefore I trust him when he treats his scriptures as worthy of respect though not without criticism and updating, and promise the Holy Spirit will lead us into truth – not a book, but his Spirit, who inspired the book and interprets it to us if we allow him to. This methodology has the advantage of not making assumptions about the Bible at the start that prejudice the outcome. If you adopted it, it wouldn’t necessarily man you’d change your conclusions or belief, but it would mean (I believe) your conclusions ad belief would be on a more reasonable foundation.
Just a thought. Thanks.
LikeLike
UnkleE has repeatedly argued that the majority of scholars believe that the central claims of the Gospels represent historical fact, and, that we skeptics are being foolish and naive to question these experts’ opinion. He has also said that since Christian NT scholar Gary Habermas’ study shows that 75% of scholars believe that the empty tomb is historical fact, we skeptics are foolish to question the opinion of these scholars.
I have always felt that UnkleE was using poor logic in making these claims, but I couldn’t find the name of the particular fallacious logic that he was using. I found it today. Read below:
The Argumentum Ad Populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answer A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness.
There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?
It is logically fallacious because the mere fact that a belief is widely held is not necessarily a guarantee that the belief is correct; if the belief of any individual can be wrong, then the belief held by multiple persons can also be wrong. The argument that because 75% of people polled think the answer is A implies that the answer is A fails, because, if opinion did determine truth, then there would be no way to deal with the discrepancy between the 75% of the sample population that believe the answer is A and 25% who are of the opinion that the answer is not A. However small a percentage of those polled give an answer other than A, this discrepancy by definition disproves any guarantee of the correctness of the majority. In addition, this would be true even if the answer given by those polled were unanimous, as the sample size may be insufficient, or some fact may be unknown to those polled that, if known, would result in a different distribution of answers.
This fallacy is similar in structure to certain other fallacies that involve a confusion between the justification of a belief and its widespread acceptance by a given group of people. *****When an argument uses the appeal to the beliefs of a group of supposed experts, it takes on the form of an appeal to authority*****; if the appeal is to the beliefs of a group of respected elders or the members of one’s community over a long period of time, then it takes on the form of an appeal to tradition.
One who commits this fallacy may assume that individuals commonly analyze and edit their beliefs and behaviors. This is often not the case (see conformity).
The argumentum ad populum can be a valid argument in inductive logic; for example, a poll of a sizeable population may find that 90% prefer a certain brand of product over another. A cogent (strong) argument can then be made that the next person to be considered will also prefer that brand, and the poll is valid evidence of that claim. However, it is unsuitable as an argument for deductive reasoning as proof, for instance to say that the poll proves that the preferred brand is superior to the competition in its composition or that everyone prefers that brand to the other.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I wonder if unklee would forgo his scholars for a few moments and actually tell us which Jesus he is talking about?
The Jesus of the nativity? Hmm. E. P. Sanders describes this as: “the clearest cases of invention are in the birth narratives” in The Historical Figure of Jesus?
or ….
“The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the kingdom of God, who founded the kingdom of heaven upon earth and died to give his work its final consecration never had any existence.” as Albert Schweitzer wrote in The Quest of the Historical Jesus?
Come on unklee, let’s hear from you not your darn experts; which Jesus do you wish for us to acknowledge existed?
Which one are you arguing for?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Imagine that 75% of the world’s historians come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith really did receive a visit from a celestial being. (25% of experts say that such a claim is unverifiable, but as it is a supernatural claim, it defies the laws of nature and is therefore highly unlikely to have occurred.) Would you as an educated person living in the 21st century drop your disbelief in Joseph Smith’s angel tale simply because 75% of experts say you should??
I doubt it.
When a group of experts, even if they are a majority, tells you something that is outrageously extraordinary…(or in plain French: out-of-this-frickin’-world bizarre)…such as the reanimation of dead bodies, DON’T take their word for it, just because they are “experts”. If 25% of experts in the field say that the majority is biased and off their rockers—watch out! The majority of experts has been wrong many times in history.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, there are 11 signed witnesses to testify that Smith received these plates from Archangel Gabriel. That’s far better ‘evidence’ than the second and third hand accounts for some biblical guy named Jesus. UnkleE with his great respect for evidence must be a Mormon, eh?
LikeLike
UnkleE I agree there are alternative approaches to understanding the Bible. I know people who are quite comfortable with a more liberal/human interpretation. I just can’t get it to work for me.
We first discussed some of these issues in February 2015 on the Aspire to Truth blog. If it was just the Bible inspiration I might somehow have found a way to cope, but it was the whole package I found unravelling. The reality of the Christian life seemed so different from what it was meant to be. But the most critical issue for me was studying Christina history, it just all screamed out ‘human’ not ‘divine’ to me.
I could never understand how Islam was so successful, how non Christian groups like Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Jehovah Witnesses were so successful. To me it made no sense as they were fighting against God. But once I understood that none of the religions had a supreme deity on their side it suddenly all made sense. It could all be explained by human factors.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@barryadamson2
In 2013 I studied a unit in Christian Theology at Seminary. I was awarded a distinction in that unit. Yet I could honestly say I was more perplexed about the Trinity after I completed the unit, than before I started.
Actually part of my cognitive Dissonance was coming to appreciate how on so many key theological doctrines that there were differing views, most of which could be supported by Scripture. Some of the differences were quite fundamental, such as between Calvinism and Arminiunism.
But some would say that only with the Holy Spirit can one properly understand the Scriptures. This seemed attractive as an argument on the surface, until one came to see that godly people seemed to be given different interpretations by the same ‘Holy Spirit’.
Last year I read A book on the Evangelical Awakening of the 18th century. I was struck how John Wesley and George Whitefield, two of the great heroes of Christian history, started out as the closest friends and eventually had a major falling out over their different theological interpretations. Wesley was an adherent to Arminiunism and Whitefield to Calvinism.
One of the favourite Christian hymns of the ear, Rock of Ages, was written by an Calvinist as challenge to the Arminium views.
LikeLike
Hi Peter, I can understand that. I was just sharing how I see things. You can only go with what you see as the truth. I am of course sorry about where you are currently, but we are all on a journey. Best wishes.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Here is something to consider:
If only 75% of the world’s foremost historians believed that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon, would our history books state that he did as a historical fact? If only 75% of historians believed that Alexander the Great captured the city of Tyre, would our history books state that he did as a historical fact? If only 75% of historians believed Roman general Titus destroyed Jerusalem, would our history books state that he did as a historical fact?
In other words, if 25% of the world’s foremost historians did NOT believe that the above alleged events occurred, would our history books list these events as historical facts, or, would they list them as ALLEGED historical events?
I’m not an historian, so I cannot say for sure, but I will bet that they would not list these events as historical facts, even though the majority of historians believe that they are. I would bet that the above events would be listed as follows: “the majority of historians believe that such and such event did occur, but one quarter of historians do not. Therefore the historicity of this alleged event must be seen in terms of possibilities or probabilities, but it cannot be considered an historical fact.
I would bet that the premier universities in this country would never use a college history text book that makes claims of historical “fact” for alleged events about which 25% of scholars deny or even doubt their historicity.
I believe that it is disingenuous for UnkleE to continue to claim that the Gospels and the empty tomb are historical “FACTS”, based on the opinion of 75% of experts.
LikeLiked by 2 people
“Based on what we can know historically….” – You take that one, Ark, it’s far too easy —
LikeLike
RE: The Argumentum Ad Populum – Exactly, Gary!
LikeLike
And don’t forget, Gary, that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend Trojans —
LikeLike
I was doing some research the other night, and came up with something I’d like to run past anyone who might have an answer to share.
If I’ve made an error anywhere, I would honestly appreciate it if someone could point it out to to me, as I may be too near the trees to see the forest.
Here goes:
From what I’ve been able to determine, the Old Testament prophet, Micah, may have actually quilled his own 3-page pamphlet, and the prophet, Zechariah, may have written the first eight chapters of his book, while the last six were written by an unknown author.
In the NT, Paul, whoever that actually was, is accepted to have written the following letters attributed to him:
• The Epistle to the Romans
• 1st Corinthians
• 2nd Corinthians
• Galatians
• Philippians
• 1st Thessalonians
• Philemon
Other than that, the entire 66 books of the KJV Bible were written anonymously. If anyone has any information to the contrary, I’d be very interested in hearing it, whether from realist or theist.
LikeLike
Peter, so then it all boils down to the childish argument, “I am better than you are!” The logical position, should there be a deity, is that no one person or group (at least in this day and age) has a monopoly on the divine. Yet, this is precisely the problem when it comes to religion. One group must always be more special than the other, and therefore, know the mind of the divine better than any other earthly source.
LikeLike
Arch, as far as I am aware, you would be correct – though I think you may have left out Isaiah. Unless you are a traditionalist, it is believed through academic study, that a number of the books were written pseudonymously. Traditionalists on the other hand believe Moses wrote Genesis through Deuteronomy, Paul wrote all the Epistles, the Disciples wrote the Gospels – with John also penning Revelation.This is as far as my knowledge takes me.
LikeLike